Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Seth Brundle

timetogo1 wrote: »

Id have thought that the standards the UK can set are dependent on whatever deal the UK agrees with the EU. And vice versa but i don't think anybody believes the UK will have much say over the EU.

Obviously if there's no deal the UK can do whatever they want.

I think what Theo is saying is that the UK can produce muck for the home market but somehow this will be better for them (although I'm not sure how)

fash

theological wrote: »

Obviously if the UK leaves the EU it won't determine EU policy. Understood.

Equally the EU won't be able to determine UK policy.

@Seth Brundle - the point is that the UK can set whatever standards it feels is appropriate for the UK. That's what regaining control means. I'm pretty sure that UK standards will be always pretty high, but like all decision making that will be a matter for subsequent governments within the UK rather than a matter for the EU in Brussels.

There will certainly be zero economic benefit and massive cost to the UK if their standards remain "pretty high", the UK only has 3 things to sell post brexit: its food standards, its health system and its passports.

Leroy42

I think, if I understand correctly, that it isn't that there is anything in the standards they particularly disagree with, not overall anyway, or that the UK intend to do anything different.

But they want the allusion that they did it all by themselves. They want to debate it, vote on it, and change it. Even if they never actually do.

Take the roaming charges for example. EU policy, took many years and involved all nations. But HMG announced that they had done it (which to be fair they were involved).

So it's the ability to do things differently, even though most accept that they won't actually change anything.

Of course the problem comes when the EU introduce new regulations. Take the recent GDPR as an example. It took everybody effort and lots of new policies, but at least it was EU wide. The UK will now be faced with either bringing in such regulations under their own laws, and pretending it was their idea, or having companies miss out.

Padre_Pio

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think, if I understand correctly, that it isn't that there is anything in the standards they particularly disagree with, not overall anyway, or that the UK intend to do anything different.

There's plenty of British owned companies involved with standards developments.

Are they leaving and setting up their own bodies? It would be a great loss.

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think what Theo is saying is that the UK can produce muck for the home market but somehow this will be better for them (although I'm not sure how)

There are three regulatory superpowers in Bejing, Washington and Brussels. From what I've read, Brussels is by far the most stringent and as a result there exists the so called "Brussels effect" whereby many companies and organisations will adopt the most stringent standards in order to be assured that they will comply with the other two competing regulatory regimes. London won't even be mentioned if it continues with the folly of a no deal Brexit. Britain's global standing will continue to deteriorate and will probably never recover if they actually go through with crashing out of the EU.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are three regulatory superpowers in Bejing, Washington and Brussels. From what I've read, Brussels is by far the most stringent and as a result there exists the so called "Brussels effect" whereby many companies and organisations will adopt the most stringent standards in order to be assured that they will comply with the other two competing regulatory regimes. London won't even be mentioned if it continues with the folly of a no deal Brexit. Britain's global standing will continue to deteriorate and will probably never recover if they actually go through with crashing out of the EU.

Britain will continue to adopt EU standards.

The only difference is that it will they that they will have decided on those exact standards themselves, at around the same time as the EU did, due to a series of coincidences.

mdudy

theological wrote: »

Why? Because having more control over UK affairs is better than having less. Norway isn't particularly happy with the relationship it has. I'd rather the UK not be trapped into something similar. The UK needs to regain control over its borders, its laws, its fishing and agricultural policy, and over its trade policy this December.

This is such a weak argument. The UK has always had control over its borders - it has always had the ability to set immigration controls within and outside of the EU; similarly, its laws. See, for example: EU Directive 2004/38/EC which allowed for the UK to remove EU citizens from the UK if they were not employed, self-employed, self-sufficient, or a student after 3 months.

I think there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of how the EU makes its laws and how countries' participate in that law-making procedure, especially in the UK, as evidenced by your posts. The spirit of the EU is also lost on the uneducated, like yourself, and it is important to remember when considering its purpose and whether it is achieving it: it's essentially a peace-preserving entity with economic trade, and, it is.

People like you fail to understand how the UK Parliamentary system works: Westminster can make ANY law it wants - it literally always has that power. It is then political hubris whether or not it falls foul of the EU or *its* law-making institutions. And if the UK leaves on a WTO exit that will be disastrous for it - the EU is (now) pulling together, rather than apart, around coronavirus (it is better to be on the inside rather than on the outside); its Government is a sh1t-sh0w; GBP will tank, if it arguably hasn't already; and, business is genuinely worried (because of Government and WTO): see CBI statements.

At least debate with some intelligence instead of being a Poundland-Brexiteer who parrots Farage and his ilk.

theological

mdudy wrote: »

This is such a weak argument. The UK has always had control over its borders - it has always had the ability to set immigration controls within and outside of the EU; similarly, its laws. See, for example: EU Directive 2004/38/EC which allowed for the UK to remove EU citizens from the UK if they were not employed, self-employed, self-sufficient, or a student after 3 months.

This is a weak counter argument. Provided that someone had a job there was no right of refusal on that basis. There was no ability to put sector by sector restrictions on this migration. That's what full border control entails when it comes to long term immigration.

mdudy wrote: »

People like you fail to understand how the UK Parliamentary system works: Westminster can make ANY law it wants - it literally always has that power. It is then political hubris whether or not it falls foul of the EU or *its* law-making institutions. And if the UK leaves on a WTO exit that will be disastrous for it - the EU is (now) pulling together, rather than apart, around coronavirus (it is better to be on the inside rather than on the outside); its Government is a sh1t-sh0w; GBP will tank, if it arguably hasn't already; and, business is genuinely worried (because of Government and WTO): see CBI statements.

The UK has left the European Union, so this argument is irrelevant to me. However there are areas of policy that are in the sole competence of the European Union, and areas of policy that are in shared competence between the EU and member states. In those areas of sole competence member states cannot deviate from EU policy. For example trade policy. Member states cannot negotiate free trade agreements.

I guess you could say these are rules of a club. Yes, they are. But they are also reasons why people might want to say they no longer want to be in the club. The UK has already left, it just needs to fully regain control of these policy areas when the transition period ends in December.

mdudy wrote: »

At least debate with some intelligence instead of being a Poundland-Brexiteer who parrots Farage and his ilk.

I would ask the same of you in respect to ad-hominems.

I may have a different view in respect to Brexit than you, but we should be able to discuss this respectfully and without childish name calling.

Leroy42

It is not that you hold a different view, it's that you consistently fail to provide any evidence to back up your position.

Sovereignty, immigration, fishing, laws, money. All these points has been debunked so many times yet still they are thrown out.

But 4years after the vote, there is still little actual detail. WTO, as if anyone has any idea what that actually means. Most don't even realise what the WA actually contains for goodness sake.

How is handing over a part of the union taking back control? How will the UK agree trade deals without agreeing on standards other than their own ( which currently are all EU standards).

You to believe all this has been answered but yet can give no actual details. Which is perfectly reasonable since the government haven't given any idea either.

If Brexiteers start to make any actual arguement, beyond slogans, it would only make a nice change but would actually make this thread far better.

Isn't the state aid stuff way more important when it comes to this level playing field thing?

Standards are one thing but the EU can't let British industries get unfair state funding allowing them to undercut EU industries and put them out of business. This is exactly what Russia and Saudi Arabia were doing to the US oil industry, and I have no doubt that a clearly hostile UK who absolutely despises the EU would do it.

Of course Brexiteers see it is as their sovereign right to be economic hitmen. "How dare a market we want to trade with not allow us to decimate their businesses."

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn't the state aid stuff way more important when it comes to this level playing field thing?

Standards are one thing but the EU can't let British industries get unfair state funding allowing them to undercut EU industries and put them out of business. This is exactly what Russia and Saudi Arabia were doing to the US oil industry, and I have no doubt that a clearly hostile UK who absolutely despises the EU would do it.

Of course Brexiteers see it is as their sovereign right to be economic hitmen. "How dare a market we want to trade with not allow us to decimate their businesses."

If I understand correctly, there isn't an expectation that the UK will massively move towards state aid and I understand alignment doesn't really need to be dynamic.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not that you hold a different view, it's that you consistently fail to provide any evidence to back up your position.

Sovereignty, immigration, fishing, laws, money. All these points has been debunked so many times yet still they are thrown out.

But 4years after the vote, there is still little actual detail. WTO, as if anyone has any idea what that actually means. Most don't even realise what the WA actually contains for goodness sake.

How is handing over a part of the union taking back control? How will the UK agree trade deals without agreeing on standards other than their own ( which currently are all EU standards).

You to believe all this has been answered but yet can give no actual details. Which is perfectly reasonable since the government haven't given any idea either.

If Brexiteers start to make any actual arguement, beyond slogans, it would only make a nice change but would actually make this thread far better.

Actually, taking back control is a policy decision with real consequences. This is where I disagree with you and Seth Brundle. It isn't sloganeering. I agree that the standards argument isn't the main concern. The main concerns with Brexit are to do with immigration, money, fishing waters, agricultural policy and trade policy all of which are not fully in the UK's control at the moment.

We're having a discussion about politics. There are simply pros and cons to each side of the argument. I can see some of the pros of the pro-EU side of the argument I just think that the cost of these pros is now too great for the UK. By cost I don't exclusively mean the cost in terms of money, but also the cost in terms of the amount of sovereignty that must be ceded to the EU.

The UK has left the EU now, the only bit that is left is to ensure that all of these policy areas are decided in Westminster going forward, which is a pretty reasonable position from my standpoint.

What kind of "evidence" would you like? I can simply hold up what I think the advantages of regaining control are, and you can hold up what you think the advantages of being in the EU-lite Norway scenario are. I think that the Norway option puts short term concerns at the expense of long term advantage. It is therefore political short termism which ultimately is a disservice in the long term.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Actually, taking back control is a policy decision with real consequences. This is where I disagree with you and Seth Brundle. It isn't sloganeering. I agree that the standards argument isn't the main concern. The main concerns with Brexit are to do with immigration, money, fishing waters, agricultural policy and trade policy all of which are not fully in the UK's control at the moment.

We're having a discussion about politics. There are simply pros and cons to each side of the argument. I can see some of the pros of the pro-EU side of the argument I just think that the cost of these pros is now too great for the UK. By cost I don't exclusively mean the cost in terms of money, but also the cost in terms of the amount of sovereignty that must be ceded to the EU.

The UK has left the EU now, the only bit that is left is to ensure that all of these policy areas are decided in Westminster going forward, which is a pretty reasonable position from my standpoint.

What kind of "evidence" would you like? I can simply hold up what I think the advantages of regaining control are, and you can hold up what you think the advantages of being in the EU-lite Norway scenario are. I think that the Norway option puts short term concerns at the expense of long term advantage. It is therefore political short termism which ultimately is a disservice in the long term.

1) Immmigration:
UK always had control of immigrants from outside the EU. That is despite the many Brexiteers being interviewed on the streets before the vote that seemed to be blaming EU and complaining about Asian "grooming gangs" etc. in the same sentence
2) Money:
UK paid an amount in, got a big rebate, received plenty of money back. They may have been a net contributor in direct money terms but the access gained was worth many times that. The UK was the equivalent of a business that makes 100k a year profit thinking that it makes a loss because it pays 10k in rent for its premises in a high profile location
3) Fishing waters:
I'd wonder how many people are actually employed in this industry in UK? Of course there will be less than 100 years ago due to factory ships etc. But that's technology rather than the EU. And who will they sell these fish to if they can't sell to the EU? UK can set up it's borders on its waters but sure the Europeans can fish on the perimeter. It's not as if the fished will be fenced in!
4) Agriculture:
Decoupling gave a lot of power to each country 15 years ago to decide its own policy in terms of how EU money was distributed. That is where there are different systems here compared to England and compared to Scotland even. The important part of that is the decision on how to allocate EU funds. In that sense the UK already has power to decide its own agricultural policy. What it doesn't have unilateral power to decide the amount of overall funds for payment. UK have promised that they will replace those funds to its farmers, but that is probably along with the mythical 350m a week HSE promise. UK promised free trade and cheaper goods for consumers but its published schedule of tariffs included foodstuffs. The covid restrictions held a magnifying glass to the dependence of their intensive agricultural sector on Eastern European labour too.
5) Trade policy: Well they appear to be having difficulty learning the basics here. It might be the aristocratic backgrounds of many of their politicians that appears to make them think that they only have to decide what they want and then tell the other side what is is and they will get given it without having to give anything in return. Lets see how long it takes for reality to sit in. Let them hurtle towards "WTO deal" (sic) if they want.

Joe_ Public

As regards state aid, should this really be such a big issue for hard brexiteers? I'd have thought that given their slavish devotion to the markets, the very notion of state aid would be anathema, that eu rules didn't even go far enough. Or is it the case that they like to retain the privilege of bailing out their big City buddies whenever it suits?

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

1) Immmigration:
UK always had control of immigrants from outside the EU. That is despite the many Brexiteers being interviewed on the streets before the vote that seemed to be blaming EU and complaining about Asian "grooming gangs" etc. in the same sentence
2) Money:
UK paid an amount in, got a big rebate, received plenty of money back. They may have been a net contributor in direct money terms but the access gained was worth many times that. The UK was the equivalent of a business that makes 100k a year profit thinking that it makes a loss because it pays 10k in rent for its premises in a high profile location
3) Fishing waters:
I'd wonder how many people are actually employed in this industry in UK? Of course there will be less than 100 years ago due to factory ships etc. But that's technology rather than the EU. And who will they sell these fish to if they can't sell to the EU? UK can set up it's borders on its waters but sure the Europeans can fish on the perimeter. It's not as if the fished will be fenced in!
4) Agriculture:
Decoupling gave a lot of power to each country 15 years ago to decide its own policy in terms of how EU money was distributed. That is where there are different systems here compared to England and compared to Scotland even. The important part of that is the decision on how to allocate EU funds. In that sense the UK already has power to decide its own agricultural policy. What it doesn't have unilateral power to decide the amount of overall funds for payment. UK have promised that they will replace those funds to its farmers, but that is probably along with the mythical 350m a week HSE promise. UK promised free trade and cheaper goods for consumers but its published schedule of tariffs included foodstuffs. The covid restrictions held a magnifying glass to the dependence of their intensive agricultural sector on Eastern European labour too.
5) Trade policy: Well they appear to be having difficulty learning the basics here. It might be the aristocratic backgrounds of many of their politicians that appears to make them think that they only have to decide what they want and then tell the other side what is is and they will get given it without having to give anything in return. Lets see how long it takes for reality to sit in. Let them hurtle towards "WTO deal" (sic) if they want.

I'll try be briefer.


1) That's true. One can still hold the view of the UK government didn't enforce this as much as they could and still think the controls should be applied for EU workers. The caveat is that non-EU migration is always time limited and EU immigration has not been.


2) The money argument is pretty basic. The UK won't pay any more, and the UK will have control over the funds including the bit that the EU decided on previously.


3 & 4) It is the principle of being able to decide fishing policy in Westminster and not in Brussels. The same with agriculture. The point is that policy for Britain will be determined in Britain.


5) The reason for this is that the UK can control its tariff schedule with Britain's concerns in mind rather than concerns for the whole of Europe. It also means that the UK can negotiate its own trading arrangements.


We obviously disagree on this, but I think it's right to take this control back and exercise it within the UK in Parliament.

fash

Donald Trump wrote: »

...

Also important on fish being that in general the UK doesn't eat the sorts of fish caught in British waters - instead for the last 150 years they've tended to only way white fish from the north Atlantic. The UK loses its primary fish market if it fails to come to a deal with the EU.

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

As regards state aid, should this really be such a big issue for hard brexiteers? I'd have thought that given their slavish devotion to the markets, the very notion of state aid would be anathema, that eu rules didn't even go far enough. Or is it the case that they like to retain the privilege of bailing out their big City buddies whenever it suits?

Well some of their buddies might be able to make good money if they get extra free money from the government.


Here is some more recently bailout news.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0525/1140392-uk-strategically-important-businesses/

fash

theological wrote: »

I'll try be briefer.


1) That's true. One can still hold the view of the UK government didn't enforce this as much as they could and still think the controls should be applied for EU workers. The caveat is that non-EU migration is always time limited and EU immigration has not been.

It is in fact rather the other way around. Non EU migration tends to be permanent (Windrush scandal aside). Movement under FOM tends to be temporary - people make money then go home.

2) The money argument is pretty basic. The UK won't pay any more, and the UK will have control over the funds including the bit that the EU decided on previously.

I assume you accept that the UK will have *significantly less* money overall though? Due to the economy being 10% smaller? And that this dwarfs the "restricted" other payments?
Furthermore, what precisely was it about those payments that was so bad? And why did the UK not seek to alter those payments?

3 & 4) It is the principle of being able to decide fishing policy in Westminster and not in Brussels. The same with agriculture. The point is that policy for Britain will be determined in Britain.

Aside from the international fishing treaties, policy will be primarily be determined in the UK's market - which will be the EU. The UK doesn't eat the fish it produces in its waters.

We obviously disagree on this, but I think it's right to take this control back and exercise it within the UK in Parliament.

I asked you several questions on the UK's no deal preparations and I note that you continually refuse to answer - why is that?

mdudy

theological wrote: »

This is a weak counter argument. Provided that someone had a job there was no right of refusal on that basis. There was no ability to put sector by sector restrictions on this migration. That's what full border control entails when it comes to long term immigration.

I would ask the same of you in respect to ad-hominems.

I may have a different view in respect to Brexit than you, but we should be able to discuss this respectfully and without childish name calling.

It's not a weak counter argument. I literally gave you an example of UK border control policy (an EU policy nonetheless) that refutes the points you proceed to make in your following sentence - that the UK did not implement the Directive is its own fault and obviously it was in Brexiteers' interests to not implement it so they could fool some idiot on the street like yourself.

There was a right to remove after three months if they did not have a job/were not self-sufficient - end of.

No thanks, I'm over respecting those who have idiotic views premised on falsehoods.

mdudy

theological wrote: »

I'll try be briefer.


1) That's true. One can still hold the view of the UK government didn't enforce this as much as they could and still think the controls should be applied for EU workers. The caveat is that non-EU migration is always time limited and EU immigration has not been.

This is false. I have literally provided you with the facts as to why. Poundland-Brexiteer indeed.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well some of their buddies might be able to make good money if they get extra free money from the government.


Here is some more recently bailout news.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0525/1140392-uk-strategically-important-businesses/

"Strategically important" - such a great catch all interpretative phrase.

First Up

theological wrote:

5) The reason for this is that the UK can control its tariff schedule with Britain's concerns in mind rather than concerns for the whole of Europe. It also means that the UK can negotiate its own trading arrangements.

Have you examples of how the UK's tariff schedule should differ from the EU's? Which UK industries have suffered under the EU's common external tariff?

The UK will be negotiating trading arrangements with approx 10% of the EU's bargaining power. Where do you expect to see the benefits arise from the UK negotiating its own? Where will the UK secure better market access terms and for what products?

45% of the UK's exports and 53% of the UK's imports are to/from the EU and have been tariff and quota free for nearly 50 years. Have you a tariff regime in mind for these that will benefit the UK economy? Have you estimated the risk to any of this trade from the imposition of border controls and possible delays?

If you haven't done any of those sums, can you refer me to who has?

fash

I'm going to have to say that what we see here is a perfect example of why that Cummings "take back control" line was so genius. Actual data proves it's nonsense - but that takes effort, and the dim witted and lazy of mind can need not bother themselves with working things out - they can just fall back to the resonating "control" idea.
It's like Trump and his big shiny wall.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Actually, taking back control is a policy decision with real consequences. This is where I disagree with you and Seth Brundle. It isn't sloganeering.

It is 100% sloganeering!
"Taking back control" might well be a policy but nobody seems able to articulate how this policy will actually change anything.

theological wrote: »

What kind of "evidence" would you like?

Was I unclear in my question as you seem to constantly evade questions that ask for any tangible evidence?
Please provide one example of a product that the UK will produce under it's own standards* for home consumption that will be better than the EU standard version and tell us in what way it will be better.

* which we presume will be lower standards when compared to the EU standards

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is 100% sloganeering!
"Taking back control" might well be a policy but nobody seems able to articulate how this policy will actually change anything.

All objective analysis show that things will change alright - for the worse. But what good are facts against simplistic slogans?

fash

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is 100% sloganeering!
"Taking back control" might well be a policy but nobody seems able to articulate how this policy will actually change anything.

... And there were go "taking back control" to hand it over to an unelected bureaucrat who has not only repeatedly broken the law but brazenly rubs the fact that he is above the law in everyone's faces. I hope the serfs begin to enjoy their new and lower station in life - they voted for this.

theological

fash wrote: »

It is in fact rather the other way around. Non EU migration tends to be permanent (Windrush scandal aside). Movement under FOM tends to be temporary - people make money then go home.

You're missing the point. EU and non-EU migration happens on different terms. non-EU migration is time restricted on the visa for a term. It is only when someone has built up enough time in the UK that they are able to apply for permanent residency. An EU migrant has the automatic right to reside in the UK permanently provided they have a job on arrival.

fash wrote: »

I assume you accept that the UK will have *significantly less* money overall though? Due to the economy being 10% smaller? And that this dwarfs the "restricted" other payments?
Furthermore, what precisely was it about those payments that was so bad? And why did the UK not seek to alter those payments?

Perhaps there will be an impact in the short term to medium terms. I think the UK will be able to succeed outside of the EU however. I'm hoping for a good deal with the EU, but I think the UK will able to still succeed on WTO terms.

fash wrote: »

Aside from the international fishing treaties, policy will be primarily be determined in the UK's market - which will be the EU. The UK doesn't eat the fish it produces in its waters.

The point is that laws in respect to fishing and agriculture should be passed in parliament. It will be up to subsequent governments to decide what the policy of the country should be and fight for these policies on election platform. The principle is that these matters should be decided in the UK and not in Brussels.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is 100% sloganeering!
"Taking back control" might well be a policy but nobody seems able to articulate how this policy will actually change anything.

I've described to you pretty clearly how it changes things. The UK will decide on matters from immigration to trade policy in Westminster and not in Brussels. That's a big deal.

How exactly that freedom is used is up to subsequent governments and it can be used for good or for ill.

One example of how policy is going to change is that all new immigrants to the UK will be subject to a points based system and there will be no preference given to EU nationals.

eagle eye

Seth Brundle wrote:

It is 100% sloganeering! "Taking back control" might well be a policy but nobody seems able to articulate how this policy will actually change anything.

Yeah it's sloganeering for sure but it's about knowing your clientele.
The blue collar workers bites in this stuff all the time. The average relatively smart young family reads the headline and the first paragraph and it's in there. It's only about 20% of people that actually read a whole article. So the sloganeer has to impress circa 60% of the folk who just read what he wants ants them to and he's golden.

fash

theological wrote: »

You're missing the point. EU and non-EU migration happens on different terms. non-EU migration is time restricted on the visa for a term. It is only when someone has built up enough time in the UK that they are able to apply for permanent residency. An EU migrant has the automatic right to reside in the UK permanently provided they have a job on arrival.

You are incorrect in your statement of the last. An EU citizen moving to another state does not need a job on arrival - nor would they have a permanent right to reside if they had a job on arrival.
Furthermore, you are missing the point. Why would an EU citizen stay in the UK long term? They can come and go as they please - and for lower salaried people they have better opportunities closer to home in Germany, Austria, Netherlands etc. plus cheaper housing to retire to in their own countries.
Gastarbeiter coming from outside the EU come and stay precisely because they lack FOM rights: "wir wollten Arbeiter aber es kamen Menschen" - furthermore given the leaky sieve of the UK system, the idea you can just kick people out after e.g. 3 months or whatever is just silly.
Why was the UK population not concerned about FOM within the EU until 2010?

Perhaps there will be an impact in the short term to medium terms. I think the UK will be able to succeed outside of the EU however. I'm hoping for a good deal with the EU, but I think the UK will able to still succeed on WTO terms.

Why won't you answer my questions on that? Are you able?

The point is that laws in respect to fishing and agriculture should be passed in parliament. It will be up to subsequent governments to decide what the policy of the country should be and fight for these policies on election platform. The principle is that these matters should be decided in the UK and not in Brussels.

Actually, fishing policy will be determined in Brussels and agricultural policy in Washington. The UK will get to decide if the rubber stamp is wine or blue - but that's about it.

I've described to you pretty clearly how it changes things. The UK will decide on matters from immigration to trade policy in Westminster and not in Brussels. That's a big deal.

Royal blue is such a nice colour don't you think - much nicer than the wine.

theological

fash wrote: »

You are incorrect in your statement of the last. An EU citizen moving to another state does not need a job on arrival - nor would they have a permanent right to reside if they had a job on arrival.
Furthermore, you are missing the point. Why would an EU citizen stay in the UK long term? They can come and go as they please - and for lower salaried people they have better opportunities closer to home in Germany, Austria, Netherlands etc. plus cheaper housing to retire to in their own countries.
Gastarbeiter coming from outside the EU come and stay precisely because they lack FOM rights: "wir wollten Arbeiter aber es kamen Menschen" - furthermore given the leaky sieve of the UK system, the idea you can just kick people out after e.g. 3 months or whatever is just silly.
Why was the UK population not concerned about FOM within the EU until 2010?

I'm making an incredibly simple point that you don't seem to get.

Tier 2 visas for non-EU migrants are time bounded. You can only stay in the UK for a time period, and the visa is subject to conditions. For example no recourse to public funds.

EU migration never had these restrictions.

Therefore comparing these two types of immigration is like comparing apples with oranges.