Good points. If the Federal Parliament had very limited scope then the make up may be less contentious. There are arguments both ways. Council of MInisters style or proportional. If defence and foreign policy were the key elements for the Fed then population based representation should be less necessary. Maybe a Parliament made up of representatives from countries, major councils, shires etc. More difficult would be how to fund the Fund for regional / national redistribution. Defence: nuclear weapons should not be a nationalist issue. There are many in England for example (myself included) totally opposed to them. We, as one island cannot have different policies on defence but have to find a common policy. Any decision on a Federal structure is not going to precede the next review of Trident.
It would be interesting if Theresa May went to the EU and said "decouple free movement of people from the sIngle market and the UK will have a referendum (or Election) to remain. If they did I bet Remain would gain overwhelming support. However the EU would never agree to it..
That would probably have worked but she has expressly said today that there would no attempt of any kind to overrule Brexit. It is going to be very interesting who she has in her cabinet. She has promised to put a Brexiter in charge of exit negotiations. I don't think she likes Osborne much but may keep him for continuity although he has greatly annoyed the leave side. I wonder if Boris will sit next to Gove? A lot of kiss and make up to do.
I really cannot believe how politicians can change their public statements from one day to the next. Well actually I have been around long enough to see that you cannot take for granted anything they say. Andrea Leadsom made her statement making out that she was doing it for the good of the country, whereas we all know that when the heat became to much she had to get out of the kitchen.
In the circumstances the planned long winded round of hustings was daft. Given the overwhelming support May had in parliament it was right for the country to avoid a PM that may of had support of the grass roots but not in the commons. By her resignation she has avoided a damaging position which the LP now finds itself in.
The issue of free movement involves several sub issues Leo. Firstly the legal rights of those who are already living in other countries (EU. citizens in the UK. and the other way around), secondly the legal rights of those who move over the next couple of years (before Brexit negotiations have been completed) and lastly movement after that date. At the moment Theresa May is not guaranteeing the rights of those already in Britain, which is using human beings as a kind of negotiating weapon as well as being illegal under international law (unrestricted residence permits cannot be taken away, once given). There is also no country which is going to bring in legislation which harms the interests of its own nationals abroad - you cannot expect eg. Germany to agree a deal which says 'our cars can come to you, but not our people'. Everybody knows that the Europeans already in Britain will be staying there for as long as they want to - any moves against them would see reciprocal moves on the other side - and would the Government like to see about 2 million disgruntled Britons returning to Britain, all with voting rights ?
I know it's wrong enough, ipso facto, that I am having to cancel next years holiday plans to the USA already given the downturn in the £ v $. That is now. It is likely to fall another 5c. And stay there. So, on at least on criterion, I have been adversely affected... so it's not too early to say.
1 Let's assume for common sense that nobody wins by chucking people out - so they stay. 2 If a deal were done the two years does not apply as no Article 50 is tabled. 3 Theresa may rightly links rights of UK citizens on other countries to theirs here - two sides of the same coin. Imagine the uproar if EU citizens were given the right to stay and then the EU kicked out UK citiznes. Hers is pure common sense and the "bargaining chip" comments are just petty politics against her. Saying nothing is not against international law - that is another "political" argument. So we all know citizens already abroad will stay whatever so it is a non issue. You miss the real point which is looking at the day after tomorrow. If the UK and EU did a deal to say from then the free movement of people ends that would work. In practice that does not mean there would be no movement - just that the UK (and EU) would have a choice whether or not to accept newcomers. Sensible and would have won Cameron the referendum but beyond the wit of the EU mandarins
There is an existing well used process in place to grant those with a record of working an contributing to the UK to be granted a IRL. This can simply be extended to EU nationals on a reciprocal basis. No great drama.
If the principle of free movement ended then would you be asking for visas for European visitors to the UK. ? Or simply leaving the thing as it is but not allowing them to work in the UK. If it is the first then you will hurt the British internal tourist industry (London alone receives over 11 billion pounds from tourism alone every year) and if the second then it is an invitation for illegal or semi legal work without papers. You should remember that Britain is estimated to have around a million illegal immigrants ie. people who have overstayed on their visas - maybe they should think about controlling this one first. It is not just European tourism which will be affected but also that from other countries,because at the moment an American or Japanese tourist only needs a visa for one EU. country and it counts for all of them - so they visit London as part of a grand tour, involving Paris, Berlin etc.
I think Cologne you are looking at the trees not the wood. Details such as need for visa or not can be worked out. Illegal means illegal - not legal status so a totally different argument and not the subject here. It is the principle that is at stake. Probably the majority of those that voted Brexit did so on grounds of immigration - at least that is what people who canvassed support from both sides said they learnt. If there were no longer an automatic right for a person to enter the UK simply because they were a citizen of the EU then for many that would solve a problem. In terms of the debate "it would give us back control of our borders" Now although that is at best a woolly argument it would satisfy many that the UK was now back in control - and many would think "more sovereign". I am certain it would sway more thanenough for Remain to gain an overwhelming majority, The EU are not agile enough to figure that out.
Small numbers? Not take it seriously? A country of over 60 million is leaving the EU and they find it hard to understand or take concerns seriously (even if they disagree with them) If that is true the EU it condemns the EU - if they do not understand what millions of people across Europe are concerned about they have no right to rule
You misunderstood Leo. I meant the small numbers of EU. immigrants in the UK. You cannot expect other EU. countries to take it seriously when immigration looms so large as a reason for Brexit yet we are talking about only around 4% of the population (and that is a productive 4% in terms of creating of new jobs). Altogether 12 % of the British population was born in other countries (mostly not EU.) yet businesses started by them are responsible for 17% of new jobs.
It is clear when you live over here that the EU do understand that there are many problems that occur when you try to get a number of countries to work together when they have different expectations of the organization. Because they do have to consult so much with individual countries, it often appears to be slow moving towards change. Rather than being undemocratic as the Brexit supporters try to portray it, it is actually the opposite. The exit of the UK of course will not take place for two years during which time they will still be paying in the same money and having to accept new legislation even though they will no longer influence it. This period will give the EU time to adjust. I have also been adversely affected with my pension now worth 80% of what it was.
No - I understood you perfectly. It is this idea that you can stand outside the UK and tell people that their concerns are minor and irrelevant that causes such anger nay hatred of the EU. How dare they belittle the feelings of UK people. It may be fine for them living on the European continent with people having roamed for centuries to talk about ony 4% or whatever figures you care to choose - but if it is important to the UK - then by definitionit is important. You do not seem to understand that you canpresent all the figures you like - and be as right as you like - yet also be completely wrong. Maybe if the EU understand the UK and it's concerns so poorly then there really was no room left to remain
Leo, I know that there are some parts of Britain which feel overwhelmed by immigration - in London, Luton, Slough, Leicester native bio British have become a minority, but this is mostly due to non EU. immigration. There are also parts which feel inundated by Poles, Rumanians etc. but the fact that these populations are not spread evenly through Britain has more to do with internal structural problems and has nothing to do with the EU. It is not the fault of the EU. that the gap between rich and poor has become so extreme in Britain, or that people think that the possibilities of finding semi legal casual work are higher there. I have heard that there are actually some firms in the UK. that have employed only workers from Lithuania - if a firm in Germany did that then they would be boycotted. Target the firms etc. which are doing this - target the peddlers of dodgy zero hour contracts, target the work agencies themselves, but not the immigrants. Sometimes I think that the English actually don't realize how many EU. citizens actually live there - they feel swamped in some areas ok. but do they stop to ask why all those foreign voices are there ? For every one EU. citizen in Britain, how many tourists are there ? And do you know the difference on the streets ? You once said that your own area was full of East Europeans, who often appeared to have nothing to do. I don't know what the main industry or agriculture is in your area, but many have gone to Britain attracted by bogus contracts - which offered a minimum amount of work per week, amongst other things, only to find out that this was a lie - they sit there on rainy days unable to pick fruit but still being charged more than was previously stated for their makeshift accomodation. I have met East European immigrants who gave up on Britain and came to Germany instead - and a familiar quote was 'I like the English, but English employers are the most unscrupulous in the World' - a quote which I would tend to go along with.
