Current Affairs EU In or Out

[davids]

I feel by then deals will be signed and sealed in principle like Nissan TBH when our farmers wanted brexit from the EU that was astounding because the first common market vote was mainly about the common agriculture and fishing policy grant!
Expect more positives to come the red tape will be binned our firms will thrive we are open for business already in London a silicon valley project is booming on IT!
we do not need a polictical dogma who tells us how to spend our contributions we send to them!
we end up 8.5 billion net loss each year!
Scientific projects will get protected, our farming industry will get protected more growth will eventually shine through, and in ten years time it will be stated thank goodness we left that lot ok for trade but not for a polictical union!

So the buying of jobs,Hinkley Point,Nissan.Will be a good thing going forwards.And where will it end?

 

[davids]

It isn't, really, You could make a very good argument for single market access with border controls the relevant treaty clauses only talk about workers and nowhere does it say that a country cannot limit migration, providing it can be justified:/QUOTE]
Norway and the Swiss need to know about this.I'm sure it will make them happy!

 

[degsy]

The people voted out in a referendum they are trying to Perdue this vote if they mess it up they will pat the price the fact is so far the economy has not fallen of a cliff - IMO it would be suicidal to tell the EU what our plans of negotiations are now?

all this may well be true joey but you're still missing my point.
The people elect a Government to 'Govern', The Govt. then give the making of a key decision making Back to the people...do you see where I'm going with this?
now factions, both in and out of Government...the same Govt. that passed it over to the people, now want to reverse the decision.

not sure the 'people' - who have, over the years, developed a bit of a downer on politicians, will be happy bunnies at this.

That's my point.

 

[Joey66]

So the buying of jobs,Hinkley Point,Nissan.Will be a good thing going forwards.And where will it end?

Hinkley point was almost settled before our Exit with also FRENCH an EU country, and the was also with Chinese investment on the next railway infrastructure before the EU exit so where are we going you tell me as you are now blaming Brexit for the wrong things imo!
The fact that thatcher and blair decimated our industries ids now coming home to roost!

 

[davids]

Hinkley point was almost settled before our Exit with also FRENCH an EU country, and the was also with Chinese investment on the next railway infrastructure before the EU exit so where are we going you tell me as you are now blaming Brexit for the wrong things imo!
The fact that thatcher and blair decimated our industries ids now coming home to roost!

It could-should have been cancelled.And the Nissan deal?........ just going to set a precedent.

 

[Joey66]

all this may well be true joey but you're still missing my point.
The people elect a Government to 'Govern', The Govt. then give the making of a key decision making Back to the people...do you see where I'm going with this?
now factions, both in and out of Government...the same Govt. that passed it over to the people, now want to reverse the decision.

not sure the 'people' - who have, over the years, developed a bit of a downer on politicians, will be happy bunnies at this.

That's my point.

Its like this would you rather Corbyn did the negotiations or may do the negotiations - we have had a referendrum OUT is going to be honoured a majority of MPs apart from mamsy pamsy Liberals have accepted the vote so the government of the day should get on with it - its a 43 year divorce it will take time if it means having another GE then lets have one a bigger majority for the tories would then give them total power lets just see if when we get to negotiations if its sorted well!

 

[Joey66]

It could-should have been cancelled.And the Nissan deal?........ just going to set a precedent.

Where you in the meeting then?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Its like this would you rather Corbyn did the negotiations or may do the negotiations - we have had a referendrum OUT is going to be honoured a majority of MPs apart from mamsy pamsy Liberals have accepted the vote so the government of the day should get on with it - its a 43 year divorce it will take time if it means having another GE then lets have one a bigger majority for the tories would then give them total power lets just see if when we get to negotiations if its sorted well!

Corbyn

May is nothing more than a stooge in a trouser suit.

 

[davids]

Where you in the meeting then?

Not much imagination needed.

 

[catcherintherye]

Once again, you've just told us you wish to remain in the EU, we get that, now just answer the question of why free movement and free trade need be intertwined. Having asked you a question about why the EU would wish to 'punish' the UK at the WTO about two dozen times without receiving an answer, I'm not really expecting you to answer this new one either.....

There's absolutely no reason why free movement and free trade have to be intertwined in an abstract sense. However what we know is that the EU have publically said they won't grant one without the other. In fairness this has not been an idle threat and both Norway & Switzerland have had to sign up to both to have access to the single market. Maybe May/Johnson/Fox can pull off an amazing deal for us by securing one without the other but it would be reasonable to accept that presently in terms of what the EU are offering they are closely intertwined?

As for the second question I'm not sure why they would want to punish the UK at the WTO particularly if we were in a trading bloc with them. It would go against their interests. They may wan to do so to be vindictive, but once you get past the rhetoric it's rare decisions of such nature are motivated centrally by vindictiveness but rather self interest.

The reality is that the it is not in the EU's interests to allow one without the other. Their aim is to make the EU the strongest trading bloc possible. Put simply free movement of capital and goods will benefit the wealthier countries while free movement of labour the poorer country's.

As a slight aside I do understand people's concerns about immigration. In many ways I agree with aspects of it but probably think people are putting short term needs ahead of a longer term picture. I am also not a member of the metropolitan elite (how I wish I was!). I have lost a job to a migrant and have worked for companies that were founded by migrants. I have also taught children from a variety of immigrant backgrounds (one class I taught had 7 languages spoken, so there was never a dull day in that job!)

My overall impression is that while there are negatives and lots of people lose out and have lost out there are also positives. Those benefits have not been spread out evenly and have re-enforced already uneven development across the country. What I do regret is that a sensible debate hasn't been had, but rather a caricature of one side only presenting the negatives and attacking anyone who tries to add some balance. Unfortunately politicians increasingly across the spectrum have joined in with this. Overall I do think this has not helped resolve the issue, as it's become a polarised debate with one side giving just the negatives and another not engaging with those negatives and focussing on the distorted picture that goes on.

For me I am happy to keep migration, but we need to think about how we share out those benefits from it. Currently the benefits are enjoyed overwhelmingly by wealthier people and I'd like to see firms who use migrant labour not have to list them, but have to ringfence money that could then be used to help support young people from all backgrounds with apprenticeships. Currently such a policy is not being developed because it goes against the internationalism of the left and the more knuckle dragging and laissez faire elements of the right who dominate the debate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's a bit like one Army general telling his Opponent exactly what his battle plan is so as to remove uncertainty........

That's half the problem. It's being approached like a zero sum game where you have winners and losers. The world has moved on. Cooperation is more important than competition.

 

[Joey66]

There's absolutely no reason why free movement and free trade have to be intertwined in an abstract sense. However what we know is that the EU have publically said they won't grant one without the other. In fairness this has not been an idle threat and both Norway & Switzerland have had to sign up to both to have access to the single market. Maybe May/Johnson/Fox can pull off an amazing deal for us by securing one without the other but it would be reasonable to accept that presently in terms of what the EU are offering they are closely intertwined?

As for the second question I'm not sure why they would want to punish the UK at the WTO particularly if we were in a trading bloc with them. It would go against their interests. They may wan to do so to be vindictive, but once you get past the rhetoric it's rare decisions of such nature are motivated centrally by vindictiveness but rather self interest.

The reality is that the it is not in the EU's interests to allow one without the other. Their aim is to make the EU the strongest trading bloc possible. Put simply free movement of capital and goods will benefit the wealthier countries while free movement of labour the poorer country's.

As a slight aside I do understand people's concerns about immigration. In many ways I agree with aspects of it but probably think people are putting short term needs ahead of a longer term picture. I am also not a member of the metropolitan elite (how I wish I was!). I have lost a job to a migrant and have worked for companies that were founded by migrants. I have also taught children from a variety of immigrant backgrounds (one class I taught had 7 languages spoken, so there was never a dull day in that job!)

My overall impression is that while there are negatives and lots of people lose out and have lost out there are also positives. Those benefits have not been spread out evenly and have re-enforced already uneven development across the country. What I do regret is that a sensible debate hasn't been had, but rather a caricature of one side only presenting the negatives and attacking anyone who tries to add some balance. Unfortunately politicians increasingly across the spectrum have joined in with this. Overall I do think this has not helped resolve the issue, as it's become a polarised debate with one side giving just the negatives and another not engaging with those negatives and focussing on the distorted picture that goes on.

For me I am happy to keep migration, but we need to think about how we share out those benefits from it. Currently the benefits are enjoyed overwhelmingly by wealthier people and I'd like to see firms who use migrant labour not have to list them, but have to ringfence money that could then be used to help support young people from all backgrounds with apprenticeships. Currently such a policy is not being developed because it goes against the internationalism of the left and the more knuckle dragging and laissez faire elements of the right who dominate the debate.

Skilled migration with a job to come too Deffo no car blanched free movement no!

 

[Joey66]

Corbyn

May is nothing more than a stooge in a trouser suit.

With brains

 

[degsy]

Its like this would you rather Corbyn did the negotiations or may do the negotiations - we have had a referendrum OUT is going to be honoured a majority of MPs apart from mamsy pamsy Liberals have accepted the vote so the government of the day should get on with it - its a 43 year divorce it will take time if it means having another GE then lets have one a bigger majority for the tories would then give them total power lets just see if when we get to negotiations if its sorted well!

One may well be no better than the other...

both, or neither, or a mixture of both may Propose this that or the other...people seem to be ignoring the wishes of the Europeans...any way, living in Australia not only is it all moot from my point of view, it's time for bed
bye.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

That's a bit like one Army general telling his Opponent exactly what his battle plan is so as to remove uncertainty........

no barriers whats so ever we will trade on a negotiated basis or trade in the WTO will lower corporation tax which will force the EU to backtrack in a reorganisation of our trade deals with them - we are leaving get used to it!
As @peteblue stated below you don't tell your enemy and thats what they are at the moment as they have threatened us the day after we denied the super power they think they are bu voting OUT - now you can have your point of view , but imo you seem to be losing the argument I have justs help my wife to set our log fire with EU coal does that please you?

Sorry lads, they're our 'enemy'/'opponent' now?



lol