FOM isn't an absolute freedom. We declare our "victory" in winning concessions then simply adopt the powers always available to us to deport workless foreigners
It was not just workless foreigners that drove the Leave vote but in work low skilled foreign workers undercutting the low paid by willing to work at or below the minimum wage.
To be fair to the EU they did offer the UK transition controls when the new accession countries joined the EU in 2004 to address this but Blair in the most idiotic decision of his premiership refused to take them
Blair displays a level of self-awareness that even the EU would struggle to stoop to.
If that's the way forwards, it's no surprise we're going nowhere. Your suggestion just piles mutually contradictory positions onto face-saving semantic inventions.
How so ? The Swiss remain within EFTA, outside the Customs Union and Single Market and operate their own Customs Territory with Lichtenstein.
There's no reason why the United Kingdom couldn't have a bilateral agreement with the EU from within EFTA which respects our position on Freedom of Movement for example. The quid pro quo of that might be the recognition of Ulster as having Special Member Status just as the Channel Islands currently enjoy within the EU.
The Swiss have to allow migration don't they? Why should we be different? Four freedoms are indivisible...
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Someone like Heseltine would be better characterised as a European nationalist than a member of the internationalist soft-Left and the type of Brits you'd find in the Commission are similar. Ardent Remainers don't all fit your stereotype of them.
Taking May at her word when she's in a weak position possibly gives them more leverage over her than they would have if it were all in black and white. If she doesn't deliver they can move against her.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
That's because they are making same classic mistake that the Brexiteers frequently make. There is no option for parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to specify a 'soft' Brexit'. It's a negotiation, the outcome of which depends on what the EU are prepared to sign up to, which in turn depends mainly on internal EU politics. The only thing within our power is to trade concessions in a negotiation. If parliament decides they don't like the result, the EU are not going to offer anything more - why should they? It's not even obvious that there's any mechanism for the EU to do so, in the timescale available.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
That last paragraph is very well said. But, frankly, fuck the voters. Fuck them for voting Leave on the back of impossible promises, and fuck them for crippling the Government's ability to effectively negotiate either a hard _or_ a soft Brexit following GE2017. The muddle-headed voters are going to leave Britain a poorer, weaker, humbler place - something neither Leavers nor Remainers wanted.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Someone like Heseltine would be better characterised as a European nationalist than a member of the internationalist soft-Left and the type of Brits you'd find in the Commission are similar. Ardent Remainers don't all fit your stereotype of them.
It is indeed. Shows how well we did from the Single Market. I am slightly surprised at the relative performance of Norway and Switzerland.
Nah shows how well we did from Thatcher's reforms.
How do you explain why the EU12 did better than the EFTA countries? Was the UK just dragging up the average thanks to Thatcher?
In part yes.
In another part the EFTA nations started from a higher base so there's been an element of catch-up (and that includes the UK starting at a low base). If you put China on that chart its line would be so steep up you'd need to change the scaling but that doesn't mean Chinese GDP/capita is more than ours.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Someone like Heseltine would be better characterised as a European nationalist than a member of the internationalist soft-Left and the type of Brits you'd find in the Commission are similar. Ardent Remainers don't all fit your stereotype of them.
I think you’re splitting hairs there.
I think it's an important distinction. Obviously there are major differences, but there's a sense in which British Unionism is analogous to European Unionism. The UK is an attempt to grow the nation state beyond the nation, but the EU doesn't pretend to be a nation state.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Someone like Heseltine would be better characterised as a European nationalist than a member of the internationalist soft-Left and the type of Brits you'd find in the Commission are similar. Ardent Remainers don't all fit your stereotype of them.
I think you’re splitting hairs there.
I think it's an important distinction. Obviously there are major differences, but there's a sense in which British Unionism is analogous to European Unionism. The UK is an attempt to grow the nation state beyond the nation, but the EU doesn't pretend to be a nation state.
The UK has existed for many hundreds of years. The EU has not. Any attempt to conflate the two is absurd.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Is the comparison valid? There are so many other variables at play.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Is the comparison valid? There are so many other variables at play.
IMO that depends on the conclusions you draw. But as you say there are variables such as does a single regulatory environment versus national regulatory environments make much difference, does a single external tariff make a difference. It is just something I would like to have a look at and think about.
Seems an unnecessarily self defeating measure which will only hit them harder for deceiving some MPs now (if that many believe they were told different, they won't be convinced they were mistaken and it was their own fault).
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
The USA, which is the bulk of NAFTA, is a single market and customs union so that's probably not a good way to try to make that comparison. Comparing the EFTA countries that joined the EU with those that didn't seems to be a better place to start.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Is the comparison valid? There are so many other variables at play.
IMO that depends on the conclusions you draw. But as you say there are variables such as does a single regulatory environment versus national regulatory environments make much difference, does a single external tariff make a difference. It is just something I would like to have a look at and think about.
I suspect Mexico has done very well. But then again, Mexico was probably going to do well in NAFTA, or out of it, as it is benefiting from the twin demographic boosts of few old people and a declining birth rates.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that 80% of all economic growth is probably demographic related. Basically, countries do well when dependency ratios are falling, and do badly when they're rising.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
I think they have that view validated by the certain type of Briton they regularly meet and work with (i.e. the type who’d work for the EU Commission) who would tend to be internationalist, of the soft-Left, Guardian/Independent reading, and share that view by default.
Someone like Heseltine would be better characterised as a European nationalist than a member of the internationalist soft-Left and the type of Brits you'd find in the Commission are similar. Ardent Remainers don't all fit your stereotype of them.
I think you’re splitting hairs there.
I think it's an important distinction. Obviously there are major differences, but there's a sense in which British Unionism is analogous to European Unionism. The UK is an attempt to grow the nation state beyond the nation, but the EU doesn't pretend to be a nation state.
But, either way, it’s irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
In so much as your post differs it just reinforces mine.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Is the comparison valid? There are so many other variables at play.
IMO that depends on the conclusions you draw. But as you say there are variables such as does a single regulatory environment versus national regulatory environments make much difference, does a single external tariff make a difference. It is just something I would like to have a look at and think about.
I suspect Mexico has done very well. But then again, Mexico was probably going to do well in NAFTA, or out of it, as it is benefiting from the twin demographic boosts of few old people and a declining birth rates.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that 80% of all economic growth is probably demographic related. Basically, countries do well when dependency ratios are falling, and do badly when they're rising.
I am really interested as a whole. NAFTA as a whole versus the relevant EEC/EU comparison. One of the reasons is the debate gets a bit sterile by country, the EU is a low growth zone, but Germany has done very well, kinda stuff. What model works best for all as opposed to some.
Does anybody have a link to a comparison of the growth rates of NAFTA versus EEC/EU over a period of time, it is something I have looked for but never found. A direct comparison of a Free Trade Area versus a customs union and single market.
Is the comparison valid? There are so many other variables at play.
IMO that depends on the conclusions you draw. But as you say there are variables such as does a single regulatory environment versus national regulatory environments make much difference, does a single external tariff make a difference. It is just something I would like to have a look at and think about.
I suspect Mexico has done very well. But then again, Mexico was probably going to do well in NAFTA, or out of it, as it is benefiting from the twin demographic boosts of few old people and a declining birth rates.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that 80% of all economic growth is probably demographic related. Basically, countries do well when dependency ratios are falling, and do badly when they're rising.
This is very probably true. For now.
Which is what makes advanced AI such a very interesting potential game changer.
It could render so many of our current debates redundant.
Comments
Four freedoms are indivisible...
If I get a chance I will produce one that is right later.
TBH I'm amazed they trusted May.
In another part the EFTA nations started from a higher base so there's been an element of catch-up (and that includes the UK starting at a low base). If you put China on that chart its line would be so steep up you'd need to change the scaling but that doesn't mean Chinese GDP/capita is more than ours.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that 80% of all economic growth is probably demographic related. Basically, countries do well when dependency ratios are falling, and do badly when they're rising.
AfD and Die Linke main beneficiaries
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article177413726/Sachsen-CDU-und-SPD-laut-Umfrage-ohne-Mehrheit-AfD-bei-24-Prozent.html
NEW THREAD
In so much as your post differs it just reinforces mine.
One of the reasons is the debate gets a bit sterile by country, the EU is a low growth zone, but Germany has done very well, kinda stuff. What model works best for all as opposed to some.
Which is what makes advanced AI such a very interesting potential game changer.
It could render so many of our current debates redundant.