Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Joey66]

I hope you're right Pete.

My fear is that she's painted herself into a corner before it even starts!

Personally I'd have liked to have seen her kick the invoking of article 50 into the long grass. Choosing to wait and see the outcome of the French and German elections next year before jumping in. As I think it's highly likely that immigration will feature heavily in both. Caps on total net migration might have been possible in the medium term.

Choosing to go in Q1 means that there's no way the EU can be seen to buckle on freedom of movement before those elections imo.

Not really have you ever heard what the EU negotiating side are saying about their stance on us leaving?
very nasty - so she has had to be a firebrand put it this way who would you rather have negotiating our corner May or Corbyn ?
the vote has been OUT voted before hand by 6 to 1 by parliament in the referendrum should take place, so lets get on with it both side told lies DC underestimated the people of this country and paid the price!
It will be a negotiation of common sense for both sides one hopes!

 

[MartyMcFly]

I hope you're right Pete.

My fear is that she's painted herself into a corner before it even starts!

Personally I'd have liked to have seen her kick the invoking of article 50 into the long grass. Choosing to wait and see the outcome of the French and German elections next year before jumping in. As I think it's highly likely that immigration will feature heavily in both. Caps on total net migration might have been possible in the medium term.

Choosing to go in Q1 means that there's no way the EU can be seen to buckle on freedom of movement before those elections imo.

The electorate have painted her into that corner. She doesn't have a choice but to deliver on immigration. If she doesn't her party will get decimated in the next elections by UKIP.

After that it's up to the EU what that means for Britain's membership of the single market.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I hope you're right Pete.

My fear is that she's painted herself into a corner before it even starts!

Personally I'd have liked to have seen her kick the invoking of article 50 into the long grass. Choosing to wait and see the outcome of the French and German elections next year before jumping in. As I think it's highly likely that immigration will feature heavily in both. Caps on total net migration might have been possible in the medium term.

Choosing to go in Q1 means that there's no way the EU can be seen to buckle on freedom of movement before those elections imo.

Personally I hope that there's a cap on immigration to London or any other city that is attracting people to come and work. We can't have that. People should be made to stay where there's no work and just suffer it out.

 

[Professor Toffee]

The electorate have painted her into that corner. She doesn't have a choice but to deliver on immigration. If she doesn't her party will get decimated in the next elections by UKIP.

After that it's up to the EU what that means for Britain's membership of the single market.

Is the next new leader of UKIP out of intensive care yet after getting a beating by a big boy

 

[MartyMcFly]

Is the next new leader of UKIP out of intensive care yet after getting a beating by a big boy

Sucker punched more like.

 

[MartyMcFly]

That's merely semantics Pete.

Single market access will require freedom of movement that has been made abundantly clear from the off, she's seemingly shut the door on it, based on HER perception of what drove the vote.

It's not her perception. It IS what drove the vote.

 

[Professor Toffee]

It's not her perception. It IS what drove the vote.

I thought it was a simple anti-establishment vote!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's not her perception. It IS what drove the vote.

Hang on, we had old blue saying earlier that it wasn't about immigration at all.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I thought it was a simple anti-establishment vote!

It's both. Both are just as important and both are essentially the same.

Globalists/Establishment want open borders and supra national organizations that don't answer to the democratic will of anyone.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Hang on, we had old blue saying earlier that it wasn't about immigration at all.

Immigration is a problem because we have lost the democratic power over our borders.
The issues on Human Rights are a problem because we have lost the democratic power over our laws/

The root problem is democracy and everything stems from that.

The reason why immigration is probably elevated above the rest is because immigration is the means to essentially take away the ability that the people would ever be able to vote out again. Look at Brexit. The only places that voted to stay where those with high levels of immigration. If Cameron had waited 5 years the demographics would have changed to mean it never would have happened and the British people would have lost control of their democracy for ever.

It's not about xenophobia or racism. It's about the fundamental change a high level of immigration makes to our democratic system which is why Labour love it.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Hang on, we had old blue saying earlier that it wasn't about immigration at all.

No, Bruce, go back and read that post. (Warning for getting it wrong! - joke!!! )

I said there was a whole slew of issues that led to people voting leave. Control over immigration was but one. Far more important to me was the fact that in my youth (at the risk of repeating myself ONCE AGAIN) we voted for a 'common market', not for legislation and judical decisions to be over-ruled by the EU. NOT for the imposition of what EU bureaucrats wanted to impose on us. NOT for 27 (and counting) countries to decide on issues that may be against our best interests. THAT is what made up the thoughts of many who voted leave, and I say that from speaking to many over the previous months.

Now go sit on the naughty stair for getting me wrong...!!!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Immigration is a problem because we have lost the democratic power over our borders.

I'm afraid I disagree. Immigration is largely a problem because the way local authorities receive money is very centralized and based largely on census data. That means both that local funding is likely to be out of data at any one time, and is very poor at responding to changes in population. If the population of a town increased by 10% through internal migration, the problems would be just the same as they are if it increased by 10% as a result of immigration from abroad.

There are also well spoken issues around our planning systems, and particularly the greenbelt, that have been restricting our ability to build new homes for decades now. Once again, this is not a problem that is limited to (or even caused by) immigration so much as NIMBY'ism.

We, or our political leaders at any rate, often laud our flexible labour force, but a big part of that flexibility is the ability to move from places with few jobs to places with a lot of jobs. It's an utter sham that the debate has been sidetracked by those with thinly veiled objections to those who are different rather than addressing what are much easier, and much more beneficial issues close to home.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It's not her perception. It IS what drove the vote.

You'd better take that up with @Old Blue 2 mate

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, Bruce, go back and read that post. (Warning for getting it wrong! - joke!!! )

I said there was a whole slew of issues that led to people voting leave. Control over immigration was but one. Far more important to me was the fact that in my youth (at the risk of repeating myself ONCE AGAIN) we voted for a 'common market', not for legislation and judical decisions to be over-ruled by the EU. NOT for the imposition of what EU bureaucrats wanted to impose on us. NOT for 27 (and counting) countries to decide on issues that may be against our best interests. THAT is what made up the thoughts of many who voted leave, and I say that from speaking to many over the previous months.

Now go sit on the naughty stair for getting me wrong...!!!

The common market includes legislation though. It isn't the case that our negotiations will be purely on things such as tariffs. There are a whole load of non-tariff barriers to trade that the single market erodes by ensuring that companies operate to common standards.

Lets say we do a hard brexit, do we really think that a British company are going to behave one way in the British market, and then another again when it trades with the EU? You would imagine it far more sensible to behave the same way in both, and as the EU offer a bigger market they will probably go with what the EU says, even if not mandated to do so.

As it is, May has pretty much said that as things stand, all EU law will transfer into British law, from where it might be chipped away at (or might not). The notion that when brexit occurs we will suddenly repeal all sorts of laws is rather misleading I fear.

 

[The Esk]

Given Sterling has fallen close to 20% since June 23rd I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher's comments to Brian Walden January 1983:

"It is thoroughly irresponsible to try to secure a major devaluation of your currency. Totally irresponsible. It means that we have to pay more for all raw materials and all pre-fabricated things coming in. It would not be to Britain’s advantage. It would be to Britain’s disadvantage. The right thing is to try to run your economy in such a way that your currency is strong. That is the way to have continuing good performance"