EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[panzer1]

Capt. swing, like Loob says too little too late and those benefit restrictions are just a drop in the ocean. It's the stress on services as well, so well done eu court, after how many years?, but I can,t help but think it's a very fortuitous time to release such a judgement or am I being cynical.

[L00b]

I agree it is most unlikely because the EU does not really believe Brexit will result in the global doomsday scenario they are trying to sell us... if they did then they'd give up free movement of people (asked for by our government or not) to stop it happening wouldn't they?

No, they wouldn't (and won't in any forthcoming negotiations).

 

Reneging on freedom of personal movement for the benefit of one member is too high a price for the EU, which it won't pay no matter what: doing that would kill the current EU ideologically and politically at the core, much more surely than the trade-related "doomsday scenario" you refer to. It's worth way way more to the EU, than the 16% of trade it does with the UK.

 

The remaining 27 members aren't going to jeopardise their common cooperative base for the sake of the Brexiting UK, by any stretches of the imagination. If Boris or Gove goes "giz a deal, but can't have freedom of movement", the 'free' trade deal will just languish in draft until Boris or Gove gets to their senses...or manage to pacify the British electorate about it

 

In the meantime, the 2 year auto-kick-the-UK-out period under Art.50 TFEU will just carry on tic-toc'ing away...and the UK needs the EU's approval for an extension (which, it appears, will be required, since Leave went on record as expecting the deal to take until 2019 to finalise).

 

I don't need to tell you what will happen to the extension request if Boris or Gove is still refusing to accept to maintain "freedom of movement" as part of the deal by that time: 'sorry London, I can't hear you over the sound of how check-mated you are'

 

Then the UK would be in the proverbial stuff right up to its hair roots, insofar as 'free' trade with the EU is concerned (and all the other countries with which it currently trades freely under EU-negotiated deals, including many large Commonwealth ones).

 

Vote Brexit, then just observe the back-pedalling by the next PM and Chancellor on the issue as negotiations take place. How I will laugh and mercilessly rib, I'm rubbing my hands at the prospect already

Is it not true that the EU could function perfectly well as a trading bloc without the free movement of people?

No, because direct and indirect immigration restrictions can be used to distort trading within the single market.

 

That's why it's just as fundamental a founding pillar of the EU (and what preceded it) as the freedoms of movement of goods and capital.

 

Don't mistake that principle for the facilitation provided by the Schengen agreement (which, I fully agree in advance, should not have been extended to newer EU member states until they were caught up to the 'core' members on the socio-economic level). But then, the UK is not a signatory of Schengen anyway, and never will be even if the vote is Remain. The current anti-immigration sentiment has cemented that within British political circles for years and years and more to come.

Edited June 15, 2016 by L00b

[panzer1]

Loob I vote for you to replace junker, how come you can see these points but they can,t???

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2016 at 10:05 ----------

 

Had they restricted shengen I don,t think brexit would be winning like we are.

[JFKvsNixon]

Had they restricted shengen I don,t think brexit would be winning like we are.

 

The Schengen Agreement is restricted for us. We opted out, it doesn't apply to the UK

[L00b]

Loob I vote for you to replace junker, how come you can see these points but they can,t???

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2016 at 10:05 ----------

 

Had they restricted shengen I don,t think brexit would be winning like we are.

You should rather be asking why did previous British governments not place a years-long hiatus on immigration from Eastern European countries when they acceded to the EU, Schengen or not, when the EU gave the UK and all other earlier EU member states the opportunity to freely do so.

 

France certainly did, as did many others

 

But perhaps the UK government lent more of an ear to British farmers and other British high-volume low-paying employers who wanted the cheap manpower soonest for profit purposes, than the French government did to French farmers and French high-volume low-paying employers...

 

Anyway, it's all the EU's fault. Carry on

Edited June 15, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

Reneging on freedom of personal movement for the benefit of one member is too high a price for the EU, which it won't pay no matter what: doing that would kill the current EU ideologically and politically at the core, much more surely than the trade-related "doomsday scenario" you refer to. It's worth way way more to the EU, than the 16% of trade it does with the UK.

 

Yes, as I said, the EU doesn't really believe it's own doomsday forecast...

 

"Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction not only of the EU but also of the whole Western political civilisation" - Tusk.

 

No, because direct and indirect immigration restrictions can be used to distort trading within the single market.

 

That's why it's just as fundamental a founding pillar of the EU (and what preceded it) as the freedoms of movement of goods and capital.

 

Don't mistake that principle for the facilitation provided by the Schengen agreement (which, I fully agree in advance, should not have been extended to newer EU member states until they were caught up to the 'core' members on the socio-economic level).

 

How does direct and indirect immigration restrictions distort trading? NAFTA functions without free movement of people.

[L00b]

Yes, as I said, the EU doesn't really believe it's own doomsday forecast.

 

"Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction not only of the EU but also of the whole Western political civilisation" - Tusk.

That particular forecast is rhetoric which only matches Leave's.

 

Doesn't Leave also believe in its own doomsday forecast of the UK becoming a federalised state of the EUSSR, Turkey joining the EU, the EU imploding within months of a Brexit vote, <etc.>?

How does direct and indirect immigration restrictions distort trading? NAFTA functions without free movement of people.

NAFTA is not as free a trading agreement as the EU, so it would pay to compare apples with apples, rather than with dishcloths.

 

Yes, there are "grades" of freedom, in any "free" trading agreement. Who'd have thought? Not people with a simplistic/uninformed understanding of international trade, whose opinion is merely guided by the presence of the word 'free' somewhere and only informed by the basic dictionary definition of the word. Hey-ho.

 

Don't believe me? Just look up how easy it would be for a Canadian or Mexican company tendering on a US contract to emigrate its own specialist workers to the US for fulfilling the contract.

 

Not. Stacks of hoops to jump through for non-US NAFTA workers to get temporary green cards. Arguably less hoops than for non-US non-NAFTA immigrants/workers. But still.

 

So US bidders automatically enjoy an immigration policy-related competitive advantage on their Canadian and Mexican counterparts for that US contract.

 

Just one small and easy-to-understand example, there are countless others. Increasing in frequency as the US is growing protectionist atm

Edited June 15, 2016 by L00b

[Tomjames]

If we Brexit there will be an emergency budget of 30 billion worth of cuts.....Yawn, more scare stories. Does not quite gel with daves comments that we can do really well outside the European. Cannot work out which is the biggest liar.

Come on carney your turn for more doom and gloom and then the IMF needs its shot.

Apocolypse a week on Sunday don,t forget.

 

Why do you think there will not be immediate cuts?

the government could easily use this as an excuse to push through more damaging cuts.

[milquetoast1]

Why do you think there will not be immediate cuts?

the government could easily use this as an excuse to push through more damaging cuts.

 

More than 50 Tory MPs have already gone on record as saying they would vote down such cuts, so it seems there will not be immediate cuts unless Labour and SNP want them.

 

If I wasn't voting leave for principled reasons, I'd almost be tempted to vote leave for entertainment reasons.

 

Edit: And Corbyn has just said they would oppose any post Brexit austerity measures, so it ain't happening.

Edited June 15, 2016 by milquetoast1

[Zamo]

Yes, there are "grades" of freedom, in any "free" trading agreement. Who'd have thought? Not people with a simplistic/uninformed understanding of international trade, whose opinion is merely guided by the presence of the word 'free' somewhere and only informed by the basic dictionary definition of the word. Hey-ho.

 

Don't believe me? Just look up how easy it would be for a Canadian or Mexican company tendering on a US contract to emigrate its own specialist workers to the US for fulfilling the contract.

 

Not. Stacks of hoops to jump through for non-US NAFTA workers to get temporary green cards. Arguably less hoops than for non-US non-NAFTA immigrants/workers. But still.

 

So US bidders automatically enjoy an immigration policy-related competitive advantage on their Canadian and Mexican counterparts for that US contract.

 

Just one small and easy-to-understand example, there are countless others. Increasing in frequency as the US is growing protectionist atm

 

Such protectionism is not unpopular... even Labour embrace it. The risk of a little protectionism isn't going to persuade many to change their minds about having open borders with EU member state. People are more concerned about the more direct impacts on their lives such as pressure on housing, schools, the NHS and wage compression.