The consequence thread (Brexit)

[chalga]

No end to EU immigration under May/Boris:

 

 

 

 

 

Restricting EU labour migration to Britain to the 70% who already have a job lined up is the strongest option in the government’s search for a way to cut immigration while keeping the freedom of movement needed to stay within Europe’s single market.

 

Both of the Conservative leadership frontrunners, Boris Johnson and Theresa May, have backed the idea that the EU’s free-movement principle should be interpreted as meaning the freedom to move to a specific job rather than the freedom to cross borders to look for work or claim benefits.

 

This approach is likely to be uppermost in the minds of the two key contenders for the Tory leadership contest as they prepare for Brexit negotiations that could close the door on unskilled labour from Europe without Britain’s loss of access to the single market.

 

 

Only the 70% coming to work in a specific job would get a national insurance number. And they would get only temporary worker status – as in the Australian immigration system – without full rights to settle in the UK and no right to bring in immediate family, below a certain income threshold.

 

An outright ban on the remaining 30% of EU migrants who come looking for work might breach the EU treaties on free movement. But a system in which labour migrants who arrive without a job have to register on a Home Office database, perhaps be issued with an identity card and be obliged to go home if unable to find a job within a few months, might fall within the kind of reform of the EU’s free-movement rules that Britain could put on the table in the Brexit negotiations.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/working-eu-uk-free-movement-permit-easy-entry-migrants-jobs-automatic-rights-

Edited June 29, 2016 by chalga

[Litotes]

Interesting point made here...

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/28/the-big-green-button-bill/

 

And paraphrased below

 

--------------------------

The EU Treaties that make up the legal framework of the European Union are given effect to in the United Kingdom by an Act of Parliament: the European Communities Act 1972. And whoever notifies Article 50 will, in effect, denude that Act of content.

 

They will render it, by commencing a process that concludes with our withdrawal from the European Union, an empty vessel. A dead parrot. And the idea that the Prime Minister, by her or his action, might be able to destroy an Act of Parliament is one that suggests we are less democracy and more dictatorship.

 

As it was put in The Case of Proclamations of 1610 :

 

…the King by his proclamation… cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm…

 

 

It means that pushing the Big Red Button might not be something that the Prime Minister can do. It might instead require a new Act of Parliament – a Big Red Button Act. And if we do need a Big Red Button Act, Parliament would need to choose to have it. MPs would need positively to choose to have it. MPs including your MP.

------------------

And, whatever the outcome in the House of Commons, to pass, a Big Red Button Bill would also need to be approved by the House of Lords.

 

And if the Big Red Button Bill did not pass then we could not begin the process that concluded with us leaving the European Union. Absent further action, we would Remain.

-------------------

 

Hence why the FTSE is bouncing back...

[tzijlstra]

The influence on the EU is not behind. The EU has got rather used to bullying tiny economies and I think the UK has given them a shock. They may well put down all sorts of terms for us to trade with them, but we don't have to accept them. I'm sure the Germans, French, Spanish and Italians couldn't give a flying fig if Greece or Ireland were to leave the EU and they lost that export market, but the UK is a major trading partner. Germany sold us £89 billion of goods last year. That's £89 billion of exports that they could loose. I doubt Mr Volkswagen will be thrilled by that. Nor will their shareholders who are just coming to terms with a £15 billion settlement over emissions in the USA and a rather large drop in sales around the world.

 

So I'm pretty sure there will be lots of hard bargaining and tough words spoken in public. But behind the scenes the minions will be desperate to hammer out a deal where they can carry on selling to us, and us to them, and the rest will be covered up in fancy words that mean nothing.

 

I think your general characterisation of the 2 options is correct.

As you know I have no interest in influencing an EU of which were not a member, any more than I want to influence the politics of any other sovereign body.

 

I do think that you severely underestimate the UK's leverage though. It will not be a matter of the EU laying down terms and us taking or leaving them. Neither side can really afford for these negotiations to fail.

 

In both cases (Unbeliever and Foxy) the truth is, we don't know. It is in the hands of the negotiators now. I believe, and this is a personal believe, that the UK has a lot to thank the Euro Clearance trade for, a significant amount of the GDP in the UK is dependent on that, I would say, don't underestimate the EU when it comes to that factor, it has been annoyed about this position for some time and it will be a major chip in these negotiations.

 

The major chip for the new PM is going to be immigration control, rightly or wrongly, that is what the referendum seems to be signalling to the UK government.

 

I think there is a golden balance there that will lead us to either an EEA alternative or an EFTA alternative. Reading both your comments I think you agree with that, correct?

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 21:10 ----------

 

No end to EU immigration under May/Boris:

 

 

 

 

 

Restricting EU labour migration to Britain to the 70% who already have a job lined up is the strongest option in the government’s search for a way to cut immigration while keeping the freedom of movement needed to stay within Europe’s single market.

 

Both of the Conservative leadership frontrunners, Boris Johnson and Theresa May, have backed the idea that the EU’s free-movement principle should be interpreted as meaning the freedom to move to a specific job rather than the freedom to cross borders to look for work or claim benefits.

 

This approach is likely to be uppermost in the minds of the two key contenders for the Tory leadership contest as they prepare for Brexit negotiations that could close the door on unskilled labour from Europe without Britain’s loss of access to the single market.

 

 

Only the 70% coming to work in a specific job would get a national insurance number. And they would get only temporary worker status – as in the Australian immigration system – without full rights to settle in the UK and no right to bring in immediate family, below a certain income threshold.

 

An outright ban on the remaining 30% of EU migrants who come looking for work might breach the EU treaties on free movement. But a system in which labour migrants who arrive without a job have to register on a Home Office database, perhaps be issued with an identity card and be obliged to go home if unable to find a job within a few months, might fall within the kind of reform of the EU’s free-movement rules that Britain could put on the table in the Brexit negotiations.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/working-eu-uk-free-movement-permit-easy-entry-migrants-jobs-automatic-rights-

 

The latter paragraph is highly relevant as this already applies to most EU member states. A point I have repeated ad nauseum before the referendum and that I will repeat ad nauseum after. The EU already gave the UK a chance to do this, it was the UK that chose not to use it. Leaving the EU over that was a drastic and, in my opinion, unnecessary decision predicated by a government inept to run the country.

[unbeliever]

I think there is a golden balance there that will lead us to either an EEA alternative or an EFTA alternative. Reading both your comments I think you agree with that, correct?

 

A free trade agreement is what I'm hoping for. As I say, modelled on the Swiss arrangement. EFTA (or something resembling EFTA) may well be the base of it.

I personally think EEA membership is taking things too far, but these matters can be reviewed and renegotiated by successive governments in the following years so it's not a huge deal either way.

[tzijlstra]

A free trade agreement is what I'm hoping for. As I say, modelled on the Swiss arrangement. EFTA (or something resembling EFTA) may well be the base of it.

I personally think EEA membership is taking things too far, but these matters can be reviewed and renegotiated by successive governments in the following years so it's not a huge deal either way.

 

This is what Tory Leave activists are saying: Move into an EEA treaty with the understanding that it can be downgraded over time, by the UK, to become an EFTA treaty, that might well be what is going to happen.

 

I am for that process, although a sidenote has to be: will the leave voters understand that this is how life works? It needs to be sold really well for it to not have a significant backlash here in the UK or the EU.

[glennpickard]

Tzijlstra: yes there are complaints from Labour and unions about loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, but NAFTA is supported by both major US parties, so I believe it will survive into the future.

Under NAFTA there is not "Free" movement of labour. What does happen is that, eg. if a US company has operations in Canada or Mexico, it can apply and get visas very quickly for staff it wishes to exchange or add to, in the country concerned. And of course vice versa. The "Labour" involved must have a job to go to as I understand it. This is a much better arrangement than what the EU has developed and forced onto all participants.

 

Of the major industrial powers, only Germany and France have entered into trade agreements whereby they have had to give up sovereign control of immigration as a quid pro quo. Both these countries may eventually want to re-negotiate this aspect, just as the UK has. But both want to stay together "Politically" through the advent of the EU, and because of past "Major differences" in 1914 and 1939, so I can understand their thinking.

 

Overall there is so much in the EU that has to be re-negotiated for it to survive into the longer term future. The UK's action should be the catalyst to start this process, as opposed to Junckers foolish statement that the UK should be out asap

[chalga]

Well,by the time a General Election is called to maybe give a mandate to the new Brexit treaty,there might be a new party up and running,and based on the Brexit Referendum,it might be called 'The Arron Banks,we've no intention of telling the truth because it doesn't matter' party..........or 'The Liars' for short:D

 

 

Banks has been credited with professionalising Ukip’s referendum push through the Leave.EU campaign. He deployed senior executives and staff from his insurance companies and hired the Washington DC political campaign strategy firm Goddard Gunster on a multimillion-pound fee to sharpen its message.

 

“It was taking an American-style media approach,” said Banks. “What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/leave-donor-plans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

Edited June 29, 2016 by chalga

[tzijlstra]

Tzijlstra: yes there are complaints from Labour and unions about loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, but NAFTA is supported by both major US parties, so I believe it will survive into the future.

Under NAFTA there is not "Free" movement of labour. What does happen is that, eg. if a US company has operations in Canada or Mexico, it can apply and get visas very quickly for staff it wishes to exchange or add to, in the country concerned. And of course vice versa. The "Labour" involved must have a job to go to as I understand it. This is a much better arrangement than what the EU has developed and forced onto all participants.

 

Of the major industrial powers, only Germany and France have entered into trade agreements whereby they have had to give up sovereign control of immigration as a quid pro quo. Both these countries may eventually want to re-negotiate this aspect, just as the UK has. But both want to stay together "Politically" through the advent of the EU, and because of past "Major differences" in 1914 and 1939, so I can understand their thinking.

 

Overall there is so much in the EU that has to be re-negotiated for it to survive into the longer term future. The UK's action should be the catalyst to start this process, as opposed to Junckers foolish statement that the UK should be out asap

 

First point - Donald Trump.

 

Second point (on the EU) that renegotiation is happening, and compared to what we are used to see in the UK, it is happening pretty fast. People here are quick to dismiss the EU on 'bureaucrat' grounds, but that was what Lisbon was about, the ground is being cleared at the moment for the next set of changes. And yes, the UK Brexit did accelerate that.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 21:41 ----------

 

Well,by the time a General Election is called to maybe give a mandate to the new Brexit treaty,there might be a new party up and running,and based on the Brexit Referendum,it might be called 'The Arron Banks,we've no intention of telling the truth because it doesn't matter' party..........or 'The Liars' for short:D

 

 

Banks has been credited with professionalising Ukip’s referendum push through the Leave.EU campaign. He deployed senior executives and staff from his insurance companies and hired the Washington DC political campaign strategy firm Goddard Gunster on a multimillion-pound fee to sharpen its message.

 

“It was taking an American-style media approach,” said Banks. “What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/leave-donor-plans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

 

What a truly horrible individual that is. Populist swine is all I can say.

[kidley]

No end to EU immigration under May/Boris:

 

 

 

 

 

Restricting EU labour migration to Britain to the 70% who already have a job lined up is the strongest option in the government’s search for a way to cut immigration while keeping the freedom of movement needed to stay within Europe’s single market.

 

Both of the Conservative leadership frontrunners, Boris Johnson and Theresa May, have backed the idea that the EU’s free-movement principle should be interpreted as meaning the freedom to move to a specific job rather than the freedom to cross borders to look for work or claim benefits.

 

This approach is likely to be uppermost in the minds of the two key contenders for the Tory leadership contest as they prepare for Brexit negotiations that could close the door on unskilled labour from Europe without Britain’s loss of access to the single market.

 

 

Only the 70% coming to work in a specific job would get a national insurance number. And they would get only temporary worker status – as in the Australian immigration system – without full rights to settle in the UK and no right to bring in immediate family, below a certain income threshold.

 

An outright ban on the remaining 30% of EU migrants who come looking for work might breach the EU treaties on free movement. But a system in which labour migrants who arrive without a job have to register on a Home Office database, perhaps be issued with an identity card and be obliged to go home if unable to find a job within a few months, might fall within the kind of reform of the EU’s free-movement rules that Britain could put on the table in the Brexit negotiations.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/working-eu-uk-free-movement-permit-easy-entry-migrants-jobs-automatic-rights-

 

My thought's entirely, the e.u and the u.k will go through hell and high water to get this agreement. and, they will get it. Because the consciences of the voting to leave was the free movement of people. the u.k negotiators cannot go back to the u.k people with that still intact. most of the other eu country's dont like the free movement idea so this may be the ideal time to tinker with it.

[Eater Sundae]

This is what Tory Leave activists are saying: Move into an EEA treaty with the understanding that it can be downgraded over time, by the UK, to become an EFTA treaty, that might well be what is going to happen.

 

I am for that process, although a sidenote has to be: will the leave voters understand that this is how life works? It needs to be sold really well for it to not have a significant backlash here in the UK or the EU.

 

Who will be party to the undertsanding that it can be downgraded? Because if it means that the EU understands that it will change from EEA, then I reckon that's a non-starter.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Eater Sundae