The end of the world is nigh.

That's the point, all it could offer the EU was fish, but it still got access to the free trade area, sets its owns rules and doesn't allow the free movement of people.

The UK in contrast is the second largest economy in the EU, the fifth largest in the world, but you don't think we have enough clout to get a good deal.

 

I have a more long term view than 2 years so it doesn't matter if it takes longer.

 

That is exactly the problem. Nobody wants to got to Greenland. It has a relatively simple economy that does not require movement of people on the scale we need it.

 

You'll have to define what you mean by 'good deal'.

That is exactly the problem. Nobody wants to got to Greenland. It has a relatively simple economy that does not require movement of people on the scale we need it.

 

You'll have to define what you mean by 'good deal'.

 

But even if you wanted to go and live there you don't have an automatic right to do so, a better deal than they had whilst in.

If we leave the EU then we will trade with China on exactly the same terms as now i.e. as per the terms of our joint membership of the WTO. The EU doesn't have a separate free trade agreement with China.

 

I agree, Chinese students also benefit Sheffield directly and I doubt that anything will change if we leave the EU. The Chinese quarter will still be built and the students will still come and learn, work and live here.

 

We also do a lot of trade with them which also wont be affected.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11943880/China-to-invest-30bn-in-UK-plc-how-the-deals-break-down.html

But even if you wanted to go and live there you don't have an automatic right to do so, a better deal than they had whilst in.

 

Few people want to live there. It's a remote massive glaciated island with few jobs (unless you are in the fishing business) and where you'd have to speak Danish at the very least.

 

They didn't exactly have an issue with immigration.

Few people want to live there. It's a remote massive glaciated island with few jobs (unless you are in the fishing business) and where you'd have to speak Danish at the very least.

 

They didn't exactly have an issue with immigration.

 

You would be surprised, they have strict immigration rules because they don't want a flood of immigrants turning up, and even though they have access to the EU market they don't follow the rules set by the EU.

Not that simple unfortunately. And I think you know it

 

This explains the trade relationship between the EU and China

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/index_en.htm

 

It wouldn't be the same. On our own we'd have much less chance of forcing China to fulfill its obligations under WTO when it trades with us.

 

You're making your arguments up on the hoof and it shows. You didn't even realise that the EU didn't have a free trade agreement with China. You're debating credibility on this matter is all but shot.

We wouldn't use the same argument whilst negotiating our deal, only a fool would think we would. But we would negotiate a deal for access to the free trade area and it wouldn't include the right for EU citizens to live and work here.

 

Negotiating whatever we like from a position of vast strength.

 

Oh, wait.

You're making your arguments up on the hoof and it shows. You didn't even realise that the EU didn't have a free trade agreement with China. You're debating credibility on this matter is all but shot.

 

No I'm not making arguments up on the hoof. Brexiters seem to be in some fantasy land about how trade deals will be done after Brexit, ignoring the realities of single market access and solutions based on WTO rules

 

This is from the horses mouth, the former director-general of the WTO

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/peter-sutherland-the-brexiteers-magical-thinking-on-global-trade-1.2592486

 

Weep!

Yes. But they also set policy on asylum from outside the EU.

Nope, the 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention (nothing to do with the EU) sets policy fundamentals outside the EU.

 

The EU Dublin Regs set how that supranational policy set is implemented in practical terms intra-EU.

 

A brexited UK will still be a signatory of the 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention.

 

Ditch the EU = ditch the Dublin Regs = ditch the "claim in 1st country of EU arrival" policy under which the UK is currently entitled to automatically (at least time, costs, resources) ship back illegals that made it to the UK through the EU back to France and elsewhere, rather than having to process their claim.

 

That's not fearmongering, it's simple logic and consequences.

Firstly, even the non-EU figures have been skewed to make them look positive. But put that aside because it doesn't matter. Even if the EU immigrant cohort scrapes a positive contribution it doesn't mean selective immigration wouldn't improve it because it obviously would. Less poor immigrants offsetting the contribution of others makes us richer. Also, slowing the population explosion (fuelled almost entirely by immigration) would ease pressure on housing, schools and the NHS. There are lots of advantages of selective immigration... what are the negatives?

In the context of the Brexit debate, it's not a question of negatives or positives, it's a question of the Brexit camp supporting their apparent belief that the UK Parliament and government will implement more selective immigration policies once out of the EU, than how selective immigration policies currently are under the existing PBS system for non-EU immigration (since, after a Brexit, and without freedom of movement as many Brexiters wish, EU nationals would be processed by the UK's existing PBS system the same as non-EU nationals as regards rights of residency...and we can all look at the stats for non-EU nationals for the last 8 years, since the PBS came into force in 2008 - seems to be working fine, eh? ).

 

Saying 'it will be so' as you (and many others) do, is nothing more than wishful thinking amounting to crystal ball polishing. So let us have your argument with supporting evidence

Sorry Loob but it is a technicality that would only interest someone in the legal profession. When the ECJ 'clarifies', the UK courts change their judgements. We do as we are told.

It is that 'technicality', as you put it, which renders your argument that 'UK Courts do as they are told by the ECJ' completely invalid.

 

It is your (apparent) lack of understanding of that 'technicality' which leads you to think that 'UK Courts do as they are told by the ECJ'. On the assumption that you are a lay person, it's understandable, but then as a legal professional, I have corrected and informed you, with independent basis (arguably not as perfect and authoritarian as I'd like, since it was Wikipedia, but it is simple and accurate enough for the purpose).

 

So now, I have to ask, is it a distrust of the EU, a distrust of the ECJ, or a distrust of the legal profession, or all of them, which leads you to shirk debating objectivity on this issue?

 

In the meantime, here's a counter-example of your simplistic (and wrong) take on the matter and which, accessorily, reinforces my earlier explanation:

In the Woolworth’s case, it is now for the Court of Appeal to establish whether the employment tribunal’s decision (overruled by the EAT) was based on a proper interpretation of UK law, in the light of the ECJ’s clarification of the Directive. Thus, although the ECJ has not conclusively determined on the facts of the case that each individual store should be considered a separate establishment, its judgment confirms that this was a permissible approach for the original tribunal to take. In light of its judgment, confirming that the EAT’s approach was wrong and which returns us to the legal position that applied before the Woolworth’s case, there is no reason to believe that the Court of Appeal will not find that the employment tribunal’s approach was the correct one all along.

Happy to read your retraction about the ECJ whenever Edited April 1, 2016 by L00b

Negotiating whatever we like from a position of vast strength.

 

Oh, wait.

 

Yep 2nd strongest economy in Europe, 5th in the world, 5th most powerful military in the world.