The EU debate - Part III

No Pete, what people are now trying to ensure is that we don't lose our full access to the single market and torpedo our economy in the process.

We're leaving the EU, that will be delivered.

 

I thought that was down to government. It's not like every negotiation we carry out is decided in parliament first. We never did that with trade deals before joining the EU.

 

We didn't vote on a lot of things, like joining nato, being part of a United Kingdom etc etc. Leaving the EU, for whatever reason, went to a referendum. It's an unusual, and important situation. I think if it's done in a way that isolates people, we'll suffer the consequences well into the future.

Getting people on board, and finding a way forward will mean compromises all round, but once it's through, it can be fine tuned later and that will be easier with popular support.

 

The debate will be interesting in the House, as iirc there was about 480 of the 650 in favour of Remain.

They'll obviously end up passing a Bill, but I hope they don't get railroaded into voting for a Bill that is in essence a "tick here lads, I'll let you know how we get on" effort.

There'd be no shame in them voting down an attempt at that tack from May imo, as she'd have to come back with something of genuine susbstance.

However, given her performance so far, I think the former is more likely as her starting point.

 

I'm still not clear in my mind how much substance it's possible for the bill to contain.

Whatever parliament decide, the EU can ignore or refuse. That's why I feel it can only be a broad statement of intent anyway, but that shouldn't stop a discussion on where others feel the priorities are, and for that to inform the negotiations, with the promise of a vote on the outcome of the negotiations.

 

Soon.,,,****!...

 

Yep, this is the only way to avoid this becoming increasingly divisive and entrenching positions. A cross party Brexit committee would be a good starting point imo.

If the FT are right then May is seeking for at least a 3 year extension on the 2 year article 50 deadline as her starting point, which would be prudent and allow for the detail of our exit to be agreed without the threat of WTO terms being the ticking timebomb in the corner. 2 years isn't long enough to do a trade deal with the EU as has been proven over the years (in fairness 2 years isn't long enough to do a deal with most nations, let alone 27 combined)

 

Let's be right, no-one is arsed about the withdrawal from the EU itself.

The 2 main issues are limiting immigration / ending free movement and full single market access. With the 2 appearing to be mutually exclusive as it stands.

Does this ultimately come down to a straight choice when at the table in Brussels will largely be the discussion in the House imo.

 

I've said before that I'd say that the free movement can be tempered if we change our benefits system and social policy to make it less attractive to immigrants that can't support themselves. Whatever people say, that does seem to be the attraction to many of those trying to cross the channel from mainland Europe.

 

Change them in what way? That's rather vague.

 

Genuine question; do you actually know or talk to any immigrants from the EC? Because I have met and worked with loads, and have genuinely never met a single one who came here to live off benefits.

 

If we could negotiate that whilst keeping the basic principle of free movement intact, and thus full access to the single market, as well as obviously paying a fee for the privilege, that would be the perfect outcome for me.

It'd appease those who see EU migrants as benefits tourists, whilst not closing the door on those who can either support themselves or can add to our economy. Whilst at the same time not shooting our own toes off in terms of the economy.

Would we get that past all 27? Not in 2 years that's for sure.

 

To be fair, the fact that you're working with them rather rules that out, doesn't it?

 

Yes, there are several who were friends of family members and some others I met socially. If you're 'working' with them, it could point to why they're not here for the benefits.

 

And that's why the Leave vote is so utterly silly.
The best situation that we can hope for is to be in roughly the same position that we're already in, but with less say and paying more money.
It's utterly ridiculous.

Staying in and working with other countries to force the renegotiation of the bits that we don't like would be far more sensible.
It's only a matter of time before these things are on the table.
That's not a reason to tip the table over and impale ourselves on the broken legs, frankly.

 

True. But walk past any bus stop or railway station in London of a morning and there'll be a fair few economic migrants standing in line. I don't think they're going to sign on at 5.30 in the morning.

 

And the ones you know - are they all on the jam roll?

 

Yes, but you have to think of it like a quantum theory.
The average EU immigrant is quite a conundrum to UKIP voters.
They're simultaneously stealing their job, while also being unemployed and claiming benefits.
Schrodinger's Migrant, basically.

 

He's from Hull. There aren't any:
http://localstats.co.uk/census-demographics/england/yorkshire-and-the-humber/kingston-upon-hull

 

We are where we are mate. We're leaving, that's a fact.

It's now about ensuring that Fox, Davis and Johnson aren't empowered to **** up our economic future as they see fit.

If what we end up with leaves people scratching their heads and wondering was that really worth all the effort? Is neither here nor there to me.