Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

HSBC were talking about taking jobs to Hong Kong a couple of years ago, long before Brexit was even talked about. When we have had positive stories about the country post Brexit we were told to wait to see what the country looked like in a couple of years time, you yourself were one of those that tried to hold the mature/patient approach, soon as a story comes up that goes along with your prejudice you are quick to put it up, showing your bias and immaturity.

Should I mention how Google expanding in London in the lovely Kings Cross(if your ever down that way get yourself to the German Gymnasium) or Facebook locating its European headquarters in London.

Some Banking jobs will leave London, Europe with its slavish approach of regularity and red tape will not keep them for long as they are not productive enough, it is a problem with the EU. But anyway the future of finance is with China, Brazil, India that is where our country should be focusing. The city has an excellent record of reinventing itself and finding new opportunities, with technology and the skill set and the verve that London has shown I would expect it to be in a far better state in 5 years time then it is today, but the will be a few negative stories for you to get a hard on over.

As for your honest question about whether anyone is feeling more soverign?

Yes I am, if this is the start of Britain looking out into the world to trade with the world if it is the start of Britain making its on laws to truly govern ourselves, do you know I could go on but i feel we have done this a thousand times. Should I when the next tech firms expands and looks for bigger premises in London because it will hire more staff(seems to be in the Standard on a weekly basis) should I put it on here. You could put every negative story and childishly ask if people who voted Brexit still have the same ideological beliefs, only problem is it will take up this whole thread.

"Showing your bias and immaturity" [emoji24] that had me lol. Thank you. There's no doubt I'm immature!

Will look out for the gymnasium. On the subject of German things, you respect how zee Germans run their country, did you see their papers headlines today? Little Britain etc etc most people in Europe don't get why we'd leave , fascists aside.

London is not screwed by any means we have a strong tech scene (which relies heavily on foreign programmers). Provided they can take on people from Europe and the rest of the world the tech industry will stay. There are no tariffs on apps etc.

I hope we see Britain shape up as you hope it will. It's not a forgone conclusion. There are benefits to brexit without doubt. The problem is getting into a position to realise them, while we sacrifice all the current good EU things that have been a part of the UKs success over the past 40 odd years.

We known we will lose some access to the single market. That's not doom and gloom it's just what was announced yesterday.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

Yeah, previously, as far as I knew, a Norway type of arrangement meant free movement remained the same. I think, politically, we'd need more control on immigration than the current EEA members get, but I can't really find the information on what their options are. The emergency brake is a bit vague to me, maybe it's as straightforward as it sounds.

Also, the cynic in me thinks the EU wouldn't let us have such a good deal, otherwise too many current EU members might be inclined to leave and ask for the same arrangement.

I found this helpful for an 'at a glance' look at EEA membership (from http://reaction.life/liberal-minded-internationalists-risk-backing-wrong-horse/ ):

The emergency break means that they can put a stop to additional immigration from the EU if the numbers are excessive. I believe that this is defined as putting pressure on public services. I will see if I can find some information on it, I read up on it quite entensively in the autumn but less so recently.

We are already a member of the EEA. There is an argument that leaving the EEA is a separate process to leaving the EU and there is a current court case going on to answer this.

@the dza the rules on the EEA immigration break are:

1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.

2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.

3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html
​

The whole article is interesting, if you are interested in EU law.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think that we probably will hold informal discussions with other countries whilst we are negotiating our exit from the EU but I do not think that we have the resources to carry out serious negotiations on multiple fronts. We are also unlikely to agree good deals until our position with the EU is settled.

David Davis' department negotiates the exit. Liam Fox's the new deals with the rest of the world. That's why there's two distinct departments (both distinct from the standard day-to-day FCO).

If we're doing nothing globally till April 2019, then Liam Fox and the 100 staff in the Department for International Trade are getting paid an awful lot for sitting on their arses.

 

[Baleforce]

David Davis' department negotiates the exit. Liam Fox's the new deals with the rest of the world. That's why there's two distinct departments (both distinct from the standard day-to-day FCO).

If we're doing nothing globally till April 2019, then Liam Fox and the 100 staff in the Department for International Trade are getting paid an awful lot for sitting on their arses.

I assume they are unionised then

 

[SpurMeUp]

Incidentally, didn't many Leave campaigners say we'd keep the UK in the single market?



"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP

"Only a madman would actually leave the market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder



Is it me being biased, or are things not exactly going to plan?

 

[milo]

David Davis' department negotiates the exit. Liam Fox's the new deals with the rest of the world. That's why there's two distinct departments (both distinct from the standard day-to-day FCO).

If we're doing nothing globally till April 2019, then Liam Fox and the 100 staff in the Department for International Trade are getting paid an awful lot for sitting on their arses.

I am familiar with the roles of each department.

DfIT's first job will be negotiating a new trading relationship with the EU. We have said that we would like to do simultaneously with our Article 50 negotiations and the European Council has said will have to follow the conclusion of the A50 process.

Have you read the Institute of Government article I linked to? It said that DfIT were still recruiting trade negotiators and is not in a position to carry out negotiations currently. Private Eye has run a couple of stories saying that they are having trouble recruiting suitably qualified staff and have recently been trying to poach staff from ACAS which sounds like a completely different skill set to me.

I think that it was unfair to blame the staff for sitting on their arse. If the government wanted this concluded quickly, they should not have decided to set up new departments. This was always going to delay things whilst they got up to speed. I think that it could have been done adequately by the Foreign Office, Treasury and Cabinet Office.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

"Showing your bias and immaturity" [emoji24] that had me lol. Thank you. There's no doubt I'm immature!

Will look out for the gymnasium. On the subject of German things, you respect how zee Germans run their country, did you see their papers headlines today? Little Britain etc etc most people in Europe don't get why we'd leave , fascists aside.

London is not screwed by any means we have a strong tech scene (which relies heavily on foreign programmers). Provided they can take on people from Europe and the rest of the world the tech industry will stay. There are no tariffs on apps etc.

I hope we see Britain shape up as you hope it will. It's not a forgone conclusion. There are benefits to brexit without doubt. The problem is getting into a position to realise them, while we sacrifice all the current good things that have been a part of the UKs success over the past 40 odd years.

We known we will lose some access to the single market. That's not doom and gloom it's just what was announced yesterday.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

I do admire Germany, we have friends in Berlin, which is actually the ugliest place in Germany i have been to. Not to get into Boris area now, but the Germans still have war guilt and it effects their mindset.

They are the only country that pays in more to the EU then us. But as they are such strong manufacturers it works for them, despite rising dislike of the EU, they as a whole still favour it. Little englander is term often thrown around, but if we are why are they stopping us from doing free trade deals with the rest of the world right now? Who comes out of that as small minded.

It is one of my biggest bug bears, if we are not involving/selling onto European countries why does the EU mind if we do a free trade deal with Kenya. I get they want all goods sold in Europe.to be the.dame standard, but what is the issue if we want to buy plastic bottle tops for drinks bottles from Kenya if they are only used in Britain. Why does the EU care if we sell Kenya shortbread without any tarrifs on them.

As for the tech sector. I read in the standard one tech boss saying they had to turn down indian would be employees because they recruited from the EU. Also a research fellow at Cambridge and i will find the story when i get home, said they might be stopped from getting EU nationals but as long as the was a work permit system they would be able to get the best talent and said that they had been lazy and just focused on EU nationals but now they would look at the whole world.

He was doing work in medical research which i now have a vested interest in. I am Nottingham at the moment but will look for it when i get home.

What about both of us not posting scare/positive stories, ypu could call it a fair trade deal. Well i thought it was pretty funny....

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/821853146616098816

May's timetable means that we really only have one year.

 

[Baleforce]

how hard can it be ?

 

[the dza]

@the dza the rules on the EEA immigration break are:

1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.

2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.

3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html
​

The whole article is interesting, if you are interested in EU law.

Ta for the link. You have quoted the main bit I'm interested in, though the Liechtenstein part was interesting too and shows that the EU can bend a bit in exceptional circumstances.

On Point 1, could the referendum result be taken as "societal difficulties"? Legally I don't know, but surely it could be argued?

Point 2 seems like it could be fudged if both parties wanted to come up with something politically expedient.

Point 3 -- they mention possible repercussions in the article, but I'm guessing this wouldn't be anything worse than the trade deal we'd end up with outside of the single market.

Surely this could be the whole phucking negotiation; leave the EU, stay in the EEA, impose an "emergency brake" on immigration and fudge point 2 so that it's open ended and restricted to low skilled sectors. Then, if it turns out we need more low-skill labour, make things less restricted.

This can't be that hard to work towards, seems like the bulk of it is in place and ready to go.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

It's not about competing.

Our goods and services should be available to us at the lowest possible price. If other countries can do that cheaper then good for them. If we can't compete then we should be making/doing something else.

That's a philosophy rather than a fact. I don't agree, I want my government maintaining my standard of living (and that of the many) if not increasing it not transferring wealth to those with it. This is not a pipe dream and is happening and is an achievable goal

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I am not saying you are wrong mate, what i am saying is the NO ONE knows for sure what will happen. From the minute the result came in there have been several folks who have been doing the DOOM and GLOOM and spamming this thread with links from so called experts about how we are ALL going to suffer because of the result.

Now i have no idea if it will be sunshine and cream or brick on a shovel but there seems to be a few who are quick to post what may happen ( along as it fits there DOOM and GLOOM narrative) but so far its not been the collapse of the country ( as some were trying to suggest it would), we have no idea how it will turn out so lets wait and see before we start writing obituaries for the country.

No one knows for sure but an educated guess is better than random. Simply put no one knows for sure Sunderland won't win the league next year but I would treat those saying Chelsea with more respect

 

[milo]

Ta for the link. You have quoted the main bit I'm interested in, though the Liechtenstein part was interesting too and shows that the EU can bend a bit in exceptional circumstances.

On Point 1, could the referendum result be taken as "societal difficulties"? Legally I don't know, but surely it could be argued?

Point 2 seems like it could be fudged if both parties wanted to come up with something politically expedient.

Point 3 -- they mention possible repercussions in the article, but I'm guessing this wouldn't be anything worse than the trade deal we'd end up with outside of the single market.

Surely this could be the whole phucking negotiation; leave the EU, stay in the EEA, impose an "emergency brake" on immigration and fudge point 2 so that it's open ended and restricted to low skilled sectors. Then, if it turns out we need more low-skill labour, make things less restricted.

This can't be that hard to work towards, seems like the bulk of it is in place and ready to go.

1. I don't think that the referendum would count as societal difficulties. Whilst there are certainly perceived difficulties caused by immigration, the government was unable to substantiate this in renegotiations last year. They even asked Migration Watch for evidence of problems caused by immigration and they were unable to provide any. If the government is unable to demonstrate that problems are caused by immigration rather than its policies, I do not see how this could be invoked.

2. Everything can be fudged if there is political will on both sides.

3. The article covers this

"should the UK as an EEA member trigger this provision in order to impose quantitative limitations or restrictive rules regarding entry, residence and employment of EEA nationals in the UK, it could then be subject to what would be essentially retaliatory measures focusing for instance on UK banks’ passporting rights"

I suspect that in reality we would pay money instead.

 

[the dza]

1. I don't think that the referendum would count as societal difficulties. Whilst there are certainly perceived difficulties caused by immigration, the government was unable to substantiate this in renegotiations last year. They even asked Migration Watch for evidence of problems caused by immigration and they were unable to provide any. If the government is unable to demonstrate that problems are caused by immigration rather than its policies, I do not see how this could be invoked.

2. Everything can be fudged if there is political will on both sides.

3. The article covers this

"should the UK as an EEA member trigger this provision in order to impose quantitative limitations or restrictive rules regarding entry, residence and employment of EEA nationals in the UK, it could then be subject to what would be essentially retaliatory measures focusing for instance on UK banks’ passporting rights"

I suspect that in reality we would pay money instead.

So I guess, basically, us having an EEA deal all (sort of) depends on the EU being willing to bend a little bit on that first point. IMO, politically, our government could only strike this deal if they came away with control over freedom of movement, and it seems we could be granted it on a bit of a bullsh1t technicality.

 

[spitshine]

Not sure if this has already been done but it will be interesting if there was a poll to see how people voted in relation to their income and social status.

I work in finance and most of the colleagues know voted to remain except two.
Those two colleagues live in poor areas and had a very working class upbringing. i.e brought up in council houses, basic education and do basic level jobs at the bank. Is their a direct correlation between the two and is this representative of the demographic as a whole.

I didn't vote in the referendum simply because my summer party was on the same day so got back too late...and didn't bother going before work

 

[glorygloryeze]

Not sure if this has already been done but it will be interesting if there was a poll to see how people voted in relation to their income and social status.

I work in finance and most of the colleagues know voted to remain except two.
Those two colleagues live in poor areas and had a very working class upbringing. i.e brought up in council houses, basic education and do basic level jobs at the bank. Is their a direct correlation between the two and is this representative of the demographic as a whole.

I didn't vote in the referendum simply because my summer party was on the same day so got back too late...and didn't bother going before work

How about a poll to see how people voted in relation to how organised they were to actually vote?

 

[parklane1]

No one knows for sure but an educated guess is better than random. Simply put no one knows for sure Sunderland won't win the league next year but I would treat those saying Chelsea with more respect

Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day its still a guess. And that is what everyone is doing and just copying storys, rumours etc that fit the way they voted. Its far to early to GUESS what the outcome will be. There were all sorts of hysterical outpourings by some on here when the result came in, its died down a bit now that they have seen its not the end of the world as we know it.

 

[milo]

So I guess, basically, us having an EEA deal all (sort of) depends on the EU being willing to bend a little bit on that first point. IMO, politically, our government could only strike this deal if they came away with control over freedom of movement, and it seems we could be granted it on a bit of a bullsh1t technicality.

That depends on what you mean by control over freedom of movement. EEA membership gives us that but within a framework.

I think that it would be difficult to argue that immigration was causing material damage to the country when levels per head are lower than many EU and EEA countries.

Voters have consistently said that they would like to see lower levels of immigration but not at the expense of living standards. The PM's plan will hit living standards, EEA membership would minimise the economic impact of leaving the EU.

This of course would be unacceptable to the Eurosceptic press, who put their owners financial interests above those of their readers.

I also think that the PM has decided that the referendum result is an endorsement of her views on immigration pre-referendum. Measures like cutting the numbers of foreign students is something that she has always wanted to do despite it not having public support and being bad for the economy.

 

[the dza]

That depends on what you mean by control over freedom of movement. EEA membership gives us that but within a framework.

Basically, bending the framework so that we could put the brake on freedom of movement for the time being, and remove the brake as an when our own government would like to (that's the "taking back control of our borders" covered). I don't think anything else is politically doable for our government, which is why they have taken the position they have re. immigration.

 

[milo]

Basically, bending the framework so that we could put the brake on freedom of movement for the time being, and remove the brake as an when our own government would like to (that's the "taking back control of our borders" covered). I don't think anything else is politically doable for our government, which is why they have taken the position they have re. immigration.

I don't agree but I fear that it is too late under the current leadership. Leaving the EEA was not on the ballot paper and the current narrative was only formed after the referendum.

There is a minority of the population for whom immigration is a major issue but there is also a sizeable chunk of the leave vote that voted to take back political control or against the EU as it is now. They mainly favour retaining access to the single market and do not want a cut in immigration to come at the expense of living standards.

The government could have chosen to follow this consensus position meeting the middle ground of the leave and remain voters. That sounds like a sensible response to a near enough 50/50 vote. Instead the Prime Minister is running scared of the newspapers, her backbenchers and UKIP.