Current Affairs EU In or Out

[ilikecheese]

From The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ck-are-eu-migrants-really-taking-british-jobs

HMRC Figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

The LSE’s Jonathan Wadsworth said: “The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. In fact, for the most part it has likely made us better off. So, far from EU immigration being a “necessary evil” that we pay to get access to the greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single market, immigration is at worse neutral, and at best, another economic benefit.”

So it's the same as it is over here. I reckon nobody wants that Polish binman's job over there, do they?

My really good friend is an immigration attorney in the Silicon Valley...she gets so frustrated with our immigration policies, because we simply cannot meet the demand for jobs, she has to jump through hoops to get these qualified people in the country who are going to be above average contributors to the country/economy.

 

[Dymak]

Apart from all that, you are inferring that Johnson does not want an Aussie points system simply because he has not expressly mentioned it in that specific quote. He has, of course, specifically referenced for MONTHS in almost every speech or interview he has given.

Johnson goes on to mention the Australian style points system in the very same article that the quote is from.

 

[Brennan]

Yes we can, if we negotiate for it and the EU agree to it.

That's like saying you can shag Jennifer Lawrence if you are really nice to her and she accepts your advances. It is not going to happen.

 

[Tree13]

But what you are suggesting is no different from those who are signing petitions for a second referendum - asking the public for an opinion on one basis and then acting on another. At the same time causing huge economic damage to the UK and to Europe.

The Prime Minister promised to invoke Article 50 on the day after the referendum and that's the basis upon which everyone voted.

As much as I am against leaving the EU, there is no credible way of not doing so in terms of accepting and valuing democracy. The people have spoken whether they were correctly informed or not, given the Conservatives were elected on the back of a promise of a referendum we must follow the will of the people.

No democrat (small d) can argue differently.

Did he?

The referendum mandate is to leave the EU. If the EU, before we invoke Article 50, agrees to significant changes in the terms of our membership (e.g. exemption from free movement and a £2bn per year reduction in our net contribution) then do you not accept that this would invalidate the mandate to invoke Article 50?

The threat to invoke Article 50 gives us the stronger negotiating position we need to push for these significant changes. We could not threaten to invoke Article 50 without having the referendum first.

 

[Tree13]

That's like saying you can shag Jennifer Lawrence if you are really nice to her and she accepts your advances. It is not going to happen.

If Jennifer Lawrence needs £8.5bn and you happen to have exactly that, I suspect the dynamic changes a little.

 

[The Esk]

I'm struggling to accept the justification of "democracy" when the entire way in which the vote was framed is now clearly a lie. Personally I don't see how following through with a decision taken based on false information is democracy.

Of course promises are always made and broken, but rarely on this scale and rarely are the lies this obvious and this vital to the democratic decision being taken.

You and I may hold the opinion it was based on a lie but that's not how you challenge a democratic decision. Who is going to determine whether the referendum was fairly campaigned on or organised? Which UK Court is going to accept a challenge? What's the legal basis for doing so?

There is none.

 

[Dymak]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Norway and Switzerland got lumbered with free movement as part of their deals because the EU didn't NEED them, and so could play hardball. The EU does however need us (or, more precisely, our £8.5bn per year net contribution to their budget), which makes our bargaining position much, much stronger. Add to that our population size makes us a massive market for the EU to export and sell goods to, unlike Norway and Switzerland which have populations of 5.75 million (Norway) and 8.37 million (Switzerland), and the differences become rather obvious.

Apart from all that, you are inferring that Johnson does not want an Aussie points system simply because he has not expressly mentioned it in that specific quote. He has, of course, specifically referenced for MONTHS in almost every speech or interview he has given.

I agree with you that the outcome of the negotiations is not a foregone conclusion. It certainly isn't a fact like @Tubey is suggesting.

But I have a question about what you write above. If we leave, then don't we take our contribution with us? Meaning it stops us from using it as leverage in negotiations about immigration?

 

[Brennan]

If Jennifer Lawrence needs £8.5bn and you happen to have exactly that, I suspect the dynamic changes a little.

They have a stronger hand than we do.

 

[Tree13]

China isn't a valid comparison. They're massive, and they're not divorcing the EU, so the terms of negotiation are in a completely different ballpark. Same as the USA/EU.

We'd be joining the EFTA. We're a part of the European continent. If the EU let us do anything other than that, they'd be opening the floodgates for countries leaving. Not going to happen.

You present this as if it's the only option. It's not, because the EU desperately needs our £8.5bn contribution. That is the precise reason they WILL entertain other proposals.

 

[Tubey]

I agree with you that the outcome of the negotiations is not a foregone conclusion. It certainly isn't a fact like @Tubey is suggesting.

But I have a question about what you write above. If we leave, then don't we take our contribution with us? Meaning it stops us from using it as leverage in negotiations about immigration?

I'm not "suggesting" it; it's what it is. What Tree13 just posted is utter nonsense.

How many people have to tell you? @The Esk, @Seanjd, myself, every expert on the matter in the world, the guidelines of the EFTA, every single political precedent... is it all white noise, or do you just find facts cloud your judgement so you ignore them?

I don't mean to be rude but, honestly, it's a case of 1+1=2 being ignored because you want the answer to be 3, so it'll damn well be 3!

 

[Tree13]

I have no idea. I know why Farage is, because he wants a trade agreement and not free trade, but that would take a decade to happen at best, and probably longer given how toxic things are and how the EU hold all the cards in such a discussion.

I can only guess that Johnson is so used to lying by now that it's just become second nature. He's either a complete idiot with no plan beyond "Take Back Control", or he's willfully misleading people.

Please expand upon what you believe these cards to be, and why the EU holds them all.

 

[Tubey]

You present this as if it's the only option. It's not, because the EU desperately needs our £8.5bn contribution. That is the precise reason they WILL entertain other proposals.

FFS! Again, that's not how it works. There's ZERO chance we will have a free trade agreement without having free movement of people. I can't put it plainer than that - absolutely zero.

I mean wow, even Farage accepts this! There IS no other proposal - it simply cannot be done.

 

[Tubey]

Please expand upon what you believe these cards to be, and why the EU holds them all.

13% of their trade, 50% of ours. We desperately need to trade with the EU, whilst the EU are already deep in discussions with Canada, USA and China.

We're the back of the queue. Obama didn't lie. You grossly overestimate the UK's importance - the EU will just shift the goalposts and carry on a bit weaker; whereas we'd be crippled.

Not only that, by their rules, Brexit is dictated by the EU and we have no input. So there's that.

 

[Tree13]

1 - It's always been up to the British government to decide immigration numbers.

2 - You're right that Brexit doesn't mean lower immigration... but...

3 - It doesn't give the government a choice.

I wish people would just listen to a straight fact and accept it. You don't have to say "I'm wrong about Brexit", but you can say you were wrong about a specific point, and this is the straight fact - we cannot have free trade with the EU without accepting the principle of free movement of people whilst a part of either the EU itself or the EFTA.

Again, presuming that we ask for either of these things.

There are no hard and fast rules on what happens when a country with 65m inhabitants, a net importer trade profile and £8.5bn to invest decides it wants a better deal or it's leaving. Free movement is enshrined in the EU, yes. EFTA membership demands free movement, yes. But if a negotiating team turns up offering what we offer and simply says "no" every time the EU asks for free movement, there is no precedent for how the EU will respond - because nothing remotely similar has ever happened before.

 

[The Esk]

Did he?

Hansard 22nd February 2016:

David Cameron

"An idea has been put forward that if the country voted to leave, we could have a second renegotiation and perhaps another referendum. I will not dwell on the irony that some people who want to vote to leave apparently want to use a “leave” vote to remain, but such an approach also ignores more profound points about democracy, diplomacy and legality. This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic.

On the diplomacy, the idea that other European countries would be ready to start a second negotiation is for the birds. Many are under pressure for what they have already agreed. Then there is the legality. I want to spell out this point carefully, because it is important. If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear about how this works. It triggers a two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place, then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU member states agrees to a delay.

And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join; it is a process for leaving"