Merged Now What?

[cullennz]

But UK gets to choose whether to try to negotiate it or not. I'm sure a Norway-style deal would be fairly acceptable to the EU - primarily since the EU would get to keep most of the benefits of British membership, with comparably few downsides. It is in the EU's best interests to have UK remain in the Common market, and it is doubly so for the UK.

It's a lousy deal for the UK overall, since it gets to keep most downsides while abandoning most upsides of membership, but you don't get to make idiotic referendum votes and then come out on top.

McHrozni

Mate

The news I've read says they want you to sign the 50 now and ditch you like an ugly date.

It could be wrong though

 

[McHrozni]

Mate

The news I've read says they want you to sign the 50 now and ditch you like an ugly date.

It could be wrong though

I'm not British, so it's not "you"

Anyway, I'm sure the EU will be glad that UK, with it's constant opt-outs and exceptions, will leave. That doesn't mean it will not cut a deal that will leave the UK worse off than it was before, but not ruined. It's certainly not in the interests of the EU to see British economy crumble, which it well could, if EU undertakes a beggar your neighbor approach.

McHrozni

 

[Ambrosia]

That's the system for assigning work visas, not the system controlling immigration as a whole (though for many a work visa is an important prerequisite to coming to the UK).

This is only part of the immigration system for non-EU citizens.

In which case I am wrong about that, though I'd guess that the majority of migrants to the UK will need to have the right to work here.

There's plenty of stories you can find about families being put into impossible situations by the non-EU immigration system including the Brain case in Scotland and others.

Even the link you provide states that the government has made it more difficult for non-EU citizens to come to the UK and that's purely for political rather than practical reasons.

Well post Brexit the immigration system is going to need to be reworked. Right now as a result of the EU it's heavily slanted in favour of EU migrants as opposed to rest of the world migrants. I don't believe that that is a good thing.

Finally I think points based systems have a fundamental flaw. They assume the government can plan the demographics of a country effectively.

You get points for being 'highly educated' as well so most of the immigrants end up being well-qualified and many are under-employed (because there isn't the demand for their skills).

If you were designing a system to control immigration, what would you base it on?

I'd want to see people that have the skills that our country is short on to be favoured over people that had skills we had a surplus of, or who had little to no skills at all.

Seriously do you think Theresa May could be trusted to decide who and how many immigrants the UK needs today, 5 years from now, 20 years from now? Do you think government legislation will be reactive and well-informed enough to be able to judge whether we need more doctors or more engineers this year? And what kind of doctor? What kind of engineer?

May isn't the PM. While she may well become PM soon, it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

Furthermore personally I don't see why it should only be wealthy, privileged folks from outside the EU who can come here. I really don't think that the Russian oligarchs and Chinese millionaires buying up London are all that wonderful additions compared to normal working Indian families for example.

Isn't it preferable to have a mix of people come to the UK. We should give opportunity to working Indian families, just as we should also give opportunity to some of the wealthy privileged folks. (the really wealthy are always going to be able to game the system and buy their way into whatever country they choose)

People are who they are through accident of birth. All of us in the UK have already won the life lottery by being in a 1st world country that gives us a decent standard of living and lots of opportunities. Our countries immigration policy needs to allow more of the people in that can improve our society, without allowing too many people in so that our systems are over stressed and give opportunities to people from all countries and all backgrounds.

 

[Ambrosia]

Your reading comprahension is somewhat lacking.

The question posed wasn't actually whether UK should exit the EU or not, but rahter:

1. Remain in the EU (championed by anyone sane with no narrow self-interest)
2. Leave the EU, but remain in the Common market (champioined by some big businesses and the like)
3. Leave the EU and the Common market (championed by various insane groups from extreme left and right)

Since much of the Brexitard campaign was based on points that necessiate leaving the Common market, without telling that loudly and clearly, a referendum on that is probably necessary.

So there are no sane people anywhere that argue that leaving the common market could actually be a good thing?, and the people voting for Brexit are all retards? Would that be a fair summation of your position?

The chances of another referendum on Brexit are slim to none.

 

[McHrozni]

So there are no sane people anywhere that argue that leaving the common market could actually be a good thing?, and the people voting for Brexit are all retards? Would that be a fair summation of your position?

I believe the answers to both of those questions are fully included in the post you quoted, in the very quote, so I see no need to repeat myself.

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

So there are no sane people anywhere that argue that leaving the common market could actually be a good thing?

No : no sane people (or yes : no sane people). Pretty much all analyst , economist or people to try to assess it come to the conclusion it can only have a net negative economic effect.

But I will not come to the conclusion english leaver were retard. Some may have been, but I am feeling a majority were fooled or did not understand the consequences properly. And then there is the sun and murdock campaign scapegoat EU for all negative stuff in UK (and now I am sure they will use the brexit as a scapegoat for the same).

Basically you got bamboozled by murdock, the sun, farage, and a few others which wanted to gain power.

 

[McHrozni]

No : no sane people (or yes : no sane people). Pretty much all analyst , economist or people to try to assess it come to the conclusion it can only have a net negative economic effect.

But I will not come to the conclusion english leaver were retard. Some may have been, but I am feeling a majority were fooled or did not understand the consequences properly. And then there is the sun and murdock campaign scapegoat EU for all negative stuff in UK (and now I am sure they will use the brexit as a scapegoat for the same).

Basically you got bamboozled by murdock, the sun, farage, and a few others which wanted to gain power.

Precisely. Notice how I said "championed by insane ..."

The whole Brexit fiasco backfired on these loons quite spectacularily. They didn't have any plans for victory, imagine that.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

No : no sane people (or yes : no sane people)........

Yeah righto. 52% of Britain's population is insane. I guess that a third of the French population is insane too.

Your arguments couldn't win the referendum, so I guess all you're left with is smearing and insulting the > half the population who didn't vote the way you wanted them too.

........it can only have a net negative economic effect..........

Here's the thing. Not everybody on the planet assesses things only in terms of the economics. No-one would have kids, for a start, if they did, and probably no-one would get married. Only a blithering fool would buy a new car if economics were the only criteria. Sensible people will have balanced the possible (possible, mark you) economic cost against the perceived benefits. If you think it's insane to do cost benefit analyses in even the most informal manner, rather than just look at the cost side of the equation, then I suggest you aren't best placed to assign levels of insanity to people who have a different approach.

 

[Rat]

Yeah righto. 52% of Britain's population is insane. I guess that a third of the French population is insane too.

Your arguments couldn't win the referendum, so I guess all you're left with is smearing and insulting the > half the population who didn't vote the way you wanted them too.

Closer to 25% of Britain's population voted to leave, if I remember correctly.

 

[MikeG]

Closer to 25% of Britain's population voted to leave, if I remember correctly.

As compared with the 22% who voted to remain. Nit thoroughly picked. Yes, I should have said electorate.

ETA...........27% Leave, 24% remain.

 

[GlennB]

Closer to 25% of Britain's population voted to leave, if I remember correctly.

Technically true. 52% voted for leave with a 72% turnout, which makes ~37% of eligible voters opting to wave bye-bye, and 25 is closer to 37 than 52 is.

Were you going for the technicality?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In which case I am wrong about that, though I'd guess that the majority of migrants to the UK will need to have the right to work here.

But others get the right to work without going through the work permit system. What you are commenting on is the work permit system which applies only to those purely coming here to work with no other connection to the country.

I'm not sure exactly what proportion that is but I'm sure it's something published somewhere we could check on.

Well post Brexit the immigration system is going to need to be reworked. Right now as a result of the EU it's heavily slanted in favour of EU migrants as opposed to rest of the world migrants. I don't believe that that is a good thing.

This is the lie* that was peddled by the Leave campaign. The correct* statement of fact was that being in the EU prevented Theresa May treating EU citizens the same horrible way she treated non-EU ones. There was no reason for her having stringent controls on non-EU immigration other than that she wanted them. Had we not been in the EU she would have treated Germans and French the same way no doubt.

*Your mileage may vary

If you were designing a system to control immigration, what would you base it on?

A fairly free market. The kind that people keep telling us works for goods and services and capital. If a non-EU person wants to come to the UK, let them. If there is demand for their skills they will employed. If there isn't then they will have no recourse to benefits anyway.

I'd want to see people that have the skills that our country is short on to be favoured over people that had skills we had a surplus of, or who had little to no skills at all.

Even if that's good in theory (and I'm not necessarily agreeing with it) the government have no idea what's needed and what isn't and would be impossible to plan effectively. It would be like having quotas on certain types of university degrees. Nobody thinks a planned economy is a good idea, why do they think planned labour supply/demographics would be?

May isn't the PM. While she may well become PM soon, it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

Put whatever name you like from the shortlist in there and the point is the same. I mentioned May specifically because she'd proven in her time in the Home Office that she doesn't give a crap about immigrants in particular or people in general if there's political capital to be made from appearing to be tough.

Isn't it preferable to have a mix of people come to the UK. We should give opportunity to working Indian families, just as we should also give opportunity to some of the wealthy privileged folks. (the really wealthy are always going to be able to game the system and buy their way into whatever country they choose)

If the system is open then a mix will come naturally. It's only when you start to set rules and barriers that things get out of whack.

Is the problem the number, or who is coming though? If it's the number then it doesn't matter if we import skilled people because skilled people need the same public services as the unskilled. Their kids need school places, they get sick, etc.

If its the number that's important then the system will be gamed to get the number down regardless of skills.

People are who they are through accident of birth. All of us in the UK have already won the life lottery by being in a 1st world country that gives us a decent standard of living and lots of opportunities. Our countries immigration policy needs to allow more of the people in that can improve our society, without allowing too many people in so that our systems are over stressed and give opportunities to people from all countries and all backgrounds.

And if you know that you've won the lottery then lets not spend our lives trying to work out how to stop other people buying tickets.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Your arguments couldn't win the referendum, so I guess all you're left with is smearing and insulting the > half the population who didn't vote the way you wanted them too.

Funny because this is exactly what you are doing in the Corbyn thread by dismissing the £3 members and telling Corbyn to resign even though the party members voted him in.

Of course you only come here to broadcast and not actually engage in discussion so it's pointless telling you this but perhaps others will see through your charade.

 

[MikeG]

Technically true. 52% voted for leave with a 72% turnout, which makes ~37% of eligible voters opting to wave bye-bye, and 25 is closer to 37 than 52 is.

Were you going for the technicality?

Unfortunately I said population, which includes a lot of people who aren't eligible to vote. So, Rat was (nearly) right, but it is a trivial aside.

 

[Rat]

Unfortunately I said population, which includes a lot of people who aren't eligible to vote. So, Rat was (nearly) right, but it is a trivial aside.

Even had you said electorate, that still includes all of the people who could have voted but didn't. But it is, as you say, a trivial aside.

 

[Aber]

Explain Rabobank then, a dutch bank trading in pretty much every European country.

Or Aviva, a UK based insurance company trading in pretty much every European country.

They seem to manage it.

There are still issues with the single market in services:

Some barriers remain

Many obstacles remain, however, in areas where integration is taking longer:
•fragmented national tax systems impede market integration and undermine efficiency
• separate national markets still exist for financial services, energy and transport
• e-commerce between EU countries has been slower to take off than at national level, and rules, standards and practices vary considerably
•the services sector is lagging behind the goods markets (although it has been possible since 2006 for companies to offer a range of services abroad from their home base)
•rules on the recognition of vocational qualifications need to be simplified to make it easier for qualified workers to find a job in another EU country.

The financial services market is a special case. The EU is seeking to build a strong, secure financial sector — while avoiding a repeat of the 2009 crisis — by supervising financial institutions, regulating complex financial products and requiring banks to hold more capital. The creation of the banking union transferred the mechanisms for bank supervision and resolution from national to EU level in several member countries. There are also plans to set up an EU-wide capital markets union to:
•reduce fragmentation in financial markets
•diversify sources of finance
•strengthen flows of capital between EU countries
•improve access to finance for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized companies.

http://europa.eu/pol/singl/index_en.htm

 

[abaddon]

There are still issues with the single market in services:



http://europa.eu/pol/singl/index_en.htm

You started with the claim that it was not allowed at all, then backed off and claimed it was theoretically possible but practically impossible, then that it was possible but difficult and now that the examples given are doing so against a tide of imaginary obstacles.

Why are they doing it if it is not profitable?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[CapelDodger]

Would he find a majority in the House of Commons to support him? Wouldn't it be politically suicidal for conservative MPs to approve that?

Some would find that preferable to spending the rest of their careers dealing with the Exit and its repurcussions. Making the grand statement as a voice of reason before going off to spend more time with the family and non-executive directorships sounds much more appealing.

 

[MCel58]

I think in a globalised world it's impossible to disentangle any single nation's economy for the rest, apart from the most dirt-poor amd weird autarkies such as North Korea.

The nation-state is obsolete but, like the dynastic state before it, it will cling on tooth and nail until actively dislodged.

I tend to agree which is why I wonder what the final outcome of all this will actually be. We can't identify a purely UK economy so we have no real view on its dependencies and key probability factors, we have no idea demographically how much immigration the nation needs, we don't know which trade deals will suit us best and replace what may be lost by Brexit. Moving a market further away to Africa or India etc will cause companies extra costs in logistics and many of the smaller companies who trade well in the EU do not have the necessary skills to trade in emerging markets. in addition, we don't even know what steps will need to be taken to protect the interests of our own citizens working in Europe. This is all based on some political aspiration without facts and on some arrogant assumption that the rest of the world really needs the UK. You can only suggest that anyone who started this project without already a planned exit approach was and is completely idiotic.

 

[MikeG]

........ You can only suggest that anyone who started this project without already a planned exit approach was and is completely idiotic.

Do you really think that anyone started this project at all? This isn't one person's agenda, and the rest dragged along kicking and screaming. This is, finally, pressure from the voting public for politicians to listen to them, bearing fruit (for better or for worse). There have been precious few advocates for Brexit in public life over the last 2 or 3 decades as the EU has morphed into something unrecognisable, and a sizeable number of the public have become more and more uncomfortable. The idiocy, if there was any, was in politicians (all politicians) underestimating how seriously hosed off with Europe that so many people had (demonstrably) become.........but not in any Brexit campaigner reflecting that reality.