Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
Some of them do.

Others seem to agree with it.

How do we determine who is right?

Is there a majority consensus among any of these lawyers?
Click to expand...
Well both the European law experts who were brought in by the HoL panel agreed with the idea.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No. I'm unwilling to accept any system whereby migrants are here at the whim of someone else and become second class 'citizens'. Nor one where people's jobs can be moved overseas and they won't be allowed to follow them.
Click to expand...

States need tools to remove undesirables from their country. As the EU runs now states have a tool to do this, it's limited to "terrorists".

I'm suggesting that instead of having the bar at 'terrorist' you instead set the bar at 'criminals that get sent to jail.'

Break the law and get sent down, and you automatically get sent home to your place of origination, and lose all your freedom of movement rights.

If another countries citizen does something bad enough to require jail time, why should the host country need to pay the cost of that?

I'm certainly not suggesting peoples freedom of movement rights being subject to whims. I'd propose that every law abiding citizen gets 3/5 years of no hassle, automatic visa for working/living/studying then after that they then have to apply for a permanent visa that would be evaluated on a case by case basis. If you're doing unskilled work, then your chances of getting a permanent visa would be lower than a skilled occupation.

Why not have a system setup that encourages people to improve themselves, learn new skills, and contribute to our society.

Oh and we already have a points based visa system in place for migrants that are outside the EEA/EU. Seems to be working OK.
 
The Don said:
Looks like those experts (who according to the Leave campaign always get things wrong and cannot be trusted) were right, the UK's credit rating has been downgraded by another agency which in turn will likely result in more expensive borrowing which in turn will mean higher taxes, bigger deficit or less to spend on services like the NHS.

Looks like those experts were right.....

But hey at least we "got our country back" :rolleyes:

I expect #IWantMyFutureBack to be trending soon - unless it already is
Click to expand...

Sorry this is from so far back in the thread, it's moving so fast I can't keep up.

On the post:

"Taxes" has become not just a dirty word, but a filthy word. Thank you 30+ years of international conservatism.

Larger deficits are certainly possible, even likely.

Even more likely are savage budget cuts in areas affecting the least powerful group in society: the poor, elderly, disabled, and children. This too is what 30+ years of international conservatism has been working towards.

A world full of ragged, desperate people willing to do any job...ANY job, no matter how degrading, painful, or dangerous and be grateful for the hovel and gruel they are grudgingly allowed as compensation.

The EU, while not without it's issues (such as migration), stands tall against exploitative and abusive Big Business. Of course the Leave people pushed Brexit, despite knowing full-well what would happen. The negative effects don't harm them personally, and effects others in ways that serve to even more further the international conservative agenda.
 
angrysoba said:
My understanding is that the EU have "four freedoms" of goods, workers, capital and services. In that case, surely financial services are included under these rules.
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
There is also a rule for some financial service of the EU to be ONLY in a member country.
Click to expand...

But the reason why this came up is not the claim that non-EU countries can provide financial services within the EU, but the claim by Mike G that there is not a free market of financial services between EU member states:

MikeG said:
There are certainly freedoms and benefits, but we don't have a free market in financial services in the EU.
Click to expand...

Is Mike G's claim true or false?
 
Ambrosia said:
Oh and we already have a points based visa system in place for migrants that are outside the EEA/EU. Seems to be working OK.
Click to expand...
The majority of EU countries only allow work permits/visas for non EEA/EU nationals if an employer can prove that the job cannot be filled by a person who already has work permit rights. In an area with a population of over 680 million(minus the UK) this could be difficult to prove and certainly it has been getting progressively more difficult for employers to get work permit/visas for non EU nationals in the last 2 years. Student visas are easier but the costs of studying in the EU is higher for non EU nationals and of course there may be no access to the generous grant funding under Leonardo and Erasmus funding. In fact it is this rule that has many of us from the UK who are already working or studying in the EU concerned about our status after Article 50 is triggered. We hope that there will be recognition of the Vienna convention but If we had to apply for work visas or student visas to get residency rights we may fall foul of these rules. Remember there are almost 2 million UK citizens studying, working and living in the EU.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
That doesn't work (rough outline).
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand your rough outline entirely, but I don't see why there then cannot be a middle ground between a totally 'Free Trade Club' if that doesn't work, and what the EU is right now.

I think there are much better and more efficient ways to go about having an EU and that actually it's better in the longer term for some countries to leave the EU that exists now to force it into radical reforms. If the EU as it is now just continues adding more and more laws and getting ever more complex, then it's adding more stuff onto a set of foundations that were designed more towards a Free Trade club (the EEC) than being a single superstate.

If here you refer to engineering standards, business is much better off with common standards; it lowers costs via volume. One of the things businesses love about any common market is just that. Standards.
Click to expand...

So lets have lots of EU standards. Most businesses will use them. Just don't make them compulsory.


allow anyone who has arrived legally, acts legally, pays taxes when able (but is not immune to unemployment), and shares common values relating to democracy and human rights who wishes, after a prudent time, to seek permanent residence. This second view makes an immigrant just another voice in a compatible chorus. More profoundly, if one recognizes that each human is equal, then one can immediately understand that, say, someone who has started a family and taken up a mortgage needs a legal foundation to protect family and assets. Just another bloke.
Click to expand...

I agree with that entirely. If you move to a new country and meet a partner and settle down, get a mortgage, you should have the same residence rights as someone born in that country. I have argued this in several posts, pre and post vote.

I do think that immigrants that contribute little to the country they move to should be incentivised to adding to their new society. If you move here and take a low paid, unskilled job, or wind up on welfare, then there ought to be limits on how long you can stay. (I'd suggest 3-5 years max)

There are indeed many faults in the EU, big and small. Yet it's a common project, something that is frightfully difficult to ever get started. [...] Yet the rationale of taking on countries in the Eastern block is the same as the original one for the EU: to unite what otherwise has and can be a continent at war. In the meantime, also create a progressively more wealthy and healthy society within resource constraints.
Click to expand...

Again I'm for European Union, for exactly these reasons, I just think that the faults of the EU presently outweigh the positives. Not long ago I read that the Greek crisis could break the Euro. If a bigger problem like that comes along in 5 years say, and the Euro is massively devalued, then we're much better off out of the EU than in it.

Brexit has made that war more possible,
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. I think that the EU needed a good kick up the backside, something that the Brexit vote has delivered in spades.

I think we are still in tumultuous times, and when the tempers have cooled a little more and once we have a new PM and a clearer picture of the direction we want to go as a country more measured voices will be heard on both sides.

It's nigh on certain that we're leaving the EU, and it's also nigh on certain imo that the EU will be forced into reforms as a result.

In 20 years if the EU then looks like a better and fairer thing than it is right now, then I'd happily vote to rejoin it.
 
Ambrosia said:
I agree with that entirely. If you move to a new country and meet a partner and settle down, get a mortgage, you should have the same residence rights as someone born in that country. I have argued this in several posts, pre and post vote.

I do think that immigrants that contribute little to the country they move to should be incentivised to adding to their new society. If you move here and take a low paid, unskilled job, or wind up on welfare, then there ought to be limits on how long you can stay. (I'd suggest 3-5 years max)
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, do you have any figures for how many people your rules would affect? I can see the point if they would clear out a few hundred thousand spongers, but if it turned out there were only , say 2000 EU migrants who stay in the UK for more than 5 years on benefits then your system is likely to be more expensive than the existing one.
 
Last edited:
Ambrosia said:
I am not sure I understand your rough outline entirely, but I don't see why there then cannot be a middle ground between a totally 'Free Trade Club' if that doesn't work, and what the EU is right now.
Click to expand...

Basically, there is always some defect in a single economic yet multinational market owing to some systemic or behavioral flaw that drives the customs union toward common fiscal, monetary, labor and industrial policies; i.e., toward political union. Once you 'get there' in a step-wise fashion, the logic on the how you arrived is easy to forget.

I think there are much better and more efficient ways to go about having an EU and that actually it's better in the longer term for some countries to leave the EU that exists now to force it into radical reforms. If the EU as it is now just continues adding more and more laws and getting ever more complex, then it's adding more stuff onto a set of foundations that were designed more towards a Free Trade club (the EEC) than being a single superstate.
Click to expand...
The historical foundation is one intended to establish peace. See the History of the European Coal and Steel Community. Even then, the UK stood apart, so In/Out is a constant between it and the EU. (Sigh.) Again, once we got to today's EU, it is easy to forget how and why.

So lets have lots of EU standards. Most businesses will use them. Just don't make them compulsory.
Click to expand...

We'd need to go case by case, really, as some make no sense if not universal, some only make sense as recommendations. In general, however, the anti-regulatory mantra à l'américaine suffers from its general and therefore uninformed targeting. Once one gets into detail, well then of course we need child labor laws, pollution control, land zoning, land use, and eventually, goodness gracious, wouldn't you know, something comes up in all realms of human endeavor.

The answer to that is one I and many used in big business. Large overalls of the entire corporation (a) never work for a thousand reasons and (b) result in large yet unproductive disturbances. To overcome that, you target (a) core critical objectives, (b) their essential workings and processes, (c) identify bottlenecks, and (d) those that are a result of bad policy get a policy reworking. (This is basic reengineering but in few words.)

In government, that translates into a redesign of processes, an adjustment of regulations, or perhaps a direct elimination of unneeded red tape. Depends. The key takeaway in business or government is that you always focus on the immediate tangible issue, the pebble in the shoe, and work to fix that. Reengineering entire systems is rarely a good idea, and is often the equivalent of a face-saving measure to generate the illusion of change, and takes forever to make the tangible improvements you get by looking at core issues singly. When driven by core issues on a cyclical calendar using continuous improvement, organizations actually can be managed and seen to change.

I agree with that entirely. If you move to a new country and meet a partner and settle down, get a mortgage, you should have the same residence rights as someone born in that country. I have argued this in several posts, pre and post vote.

I do think that immigrants that contribute little to the country they move to should be incentivised to adding to their new society. If you move here and take a low paid, unskilled job, or wind up on welfare, then there ought to be limits on how long you can stay. (I'd suggest 3-5 years max)
Click to expand...

Though I agree the very first stage of immigration might have a short time limit, say 3 to 5 years, before any more permanent status is granted, I can see no justification to choosing who gets to stay on the basis of type of employment. It sounds good as industrial policy, but treats actual humans as widgets. Even janitors fall in love.

The time to restrict by profile is at the start, i.e., basis of entry. In the case of the UK, let's say it is a magnet for all strata. How to deal with that? To avoid discrimination, argue for a maximum quantity of immigration per time period. If agreed to with partners, this may include some differentiation on the basis of industrial policy. But definitely a workable issue.

Again I'm for European Union, for exactly these reasons, I just think that the faults of the EU presently outweigh the positives. Not long ago I read that the Greek crisis could break the Euro. If a bigger problem like that comes along in 5 years say, and the Euro is massively devalued, then we're much better off out of the EU than in it.
Click to expand...

Euro is too long for this same post to go into, but for UK is moot right now anyway.

This is where I disagree. I think that the EU needed a good kick up the backside, something that the Brexit vote has delivered in spades.

I think we are still in tumultuous times, and when the tempers have cooled a little more and once we have a new PM and a clearer picture of the direction we want to go as a country more measured voices will be heard on both sides.
Click to expand...

If they are tumultuous times, could we not agree that kicks up backsides are not helpful? I've seen plenty of cool-headed and hard-nosed negotiators in my day who need no theatrics to achieve goals, especially if those theatrics poison the well for all.

It's nigh on certain that we're leaving the EU, and it's also nigh on certain imo that the EU will be forced into reforms as a result.

In 20 years if the EU then looks like a better and fairer thing than it is right now, then I'd happily vote to rejoin it.
Click to expand...

Hope there is a decent world left. At this juncture in the 21st century, it is clear to me we are on a knife edge. East Asia is dangerous; there are worrisome Chinese moves in the South China Sea and Sea of Japan; Russian planes are buzzing NATO assets in the Baltic in a reckless fashion; the outcome for regimes in the ME is uncertain, including the much ignored but newly worrisome rivalries among factions in the Saudi kingdom and tense need to modernize an economy while remaining in the 9th century; South Asia has a new nuclear rivalry, prompting Pakistan to announce they are toying with making battlefield nukes, and finally Putin's new military adventures in the Black Sea area. And someone, somewhere, will set off a dirty bomb. Whenever that happens, regardless of where, the world will change much for the worse.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
Product safety, misleading advertising, polluting production methods, and non-delivery on contracted goods and services are rampant in the absence of a regulated and enforced field of play. This is a matter of fact.
Click to expand...
Not disputed in this thread but again no relevance.
 
Your hypothetical is also not relevant to the statement that was made in the first place.

When one is arguing about the merits or otherwise of market forces compared to government regulation . . . . it is a non-trivial mix up to then confuse one of those with the other of those. Wouldn't you say?

Bit like saying that you should not eat that apple rather than this apple because "everybody knows oranges are far nastier than apples"
 
Francesca R said:
Not disputed in this thread but again no relevance.
Click to expand...
I think I preemptively replied already.
Hlafordlaes said:
... In general, however, the anti-regulatory mantra à l'américaine suffers from its general and therefore uninformed targeting. Once one gets into detail, well then.
Click to expand...


***

Hlafordlaes said:
... Large overalls...
Click to expand...

Overhauls, of course. Oh, man, I never expected this horrible descent into homonym, or even similar-sounding word, madness. Caught myself writing 'one' instead of 'won' the other day, but noticed way too late to edit I'd used 'here, here' in lieu of 'hear, hear' on another occasion. OMG! Getting old gets old quick.

But no matter what I do, seems trailer park spelling and grammar will soon be the constant case. Boo-hoo.
 
Ambrosia said:
Oh and we already have a points based visa system in place for migrants that are outside the EEA/EU. Seems to be working OK.
Click to expand...

Sorry am I confused about something? I thought you were from the UK?

The UK non-EU immigration system is not a points based system nor is it working OK.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
<snip>

But no matter what I do, seems trailer park spelling and grammar will soon be the constant case. Boo-hoo.
Click to expand...


And when it is people will be taken to task for doing that wrong as soon as new changes appear.

Probably by the same people doing the chastising now.

There is no rest for the Grammar Nazi. It's a lonely and thankless task.

(As well it should be. :))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom