Be interesting to know how much it cost the Bank of England to stabilise the pound though. The President of the EU has stated in the last hour that free movement of people to access the free market is non negotiable.
The President of the Parliament is Martin Schulz, the President of the Commission is M. Juncker, and the President of the Council is Donald Tusk. I have no idea who you mean by "the President of the EU". The free movement of labour (i.e. people) stands alongside the free movement of goods, services, and capital. These four freedoms are absolutely fundamental and interdependent and there is not a snowball's chance of any of the 27 other member states giving up any of them. The freedoms are what the single market is all about. Of course they are non-negotiable.
They are talking about the relationship we have now as members of the EU re: free movement and access to the free market. So nothing being said changes anything. If one of our demands is to not allow the free movement of EU citizens into the UK, then we negotiate some kind of trade deal. This is what has been said all along, nothing new mentioned today. People are getting access to the single market with the ability to trade with the EU confused.
Those four freedoms are wrapped up in an arrangement that is called the single market and are non negotiable. Presumably it would be possible to incorporate elements of those four freedoms and wrap them up in an arrangement that is called something other than the single market. Whether the will is there to do that is another matter, but I see no reason why it couldn't be technically possible.
The 28 member states collectively can do anything they want and agree anything they want. The "EU" is merely the creature of its member states and cannot stop them doing anything. The point is that the single market has been enormously beneficial and virtually nobody wants to give it up - not unless they are totally insane - so they will not countenance it being wrecked. Any state can leave the single market if it so chooses, rather like any individual can shoot themselves in the foot.
You could but I'm not sure it makes any sense, take away the free movement of labour and you are privileging capital over labour. I thought it was very plain that the single market was one of the things that was being rejected by voting leave - I voted remain because that's what I felt was most important even if you have to cede some sovreignty for it. I imagine it will be possible to negotiate trade deals in specific areas but not universal access to the whole market. That's not to say that some good deals can't be done but it's not going to be better overall than the deal we had.
I don't think it was plain. People were told we could vote leave and still have access to the free market.
Agreed. But if they listened properly they would hear people in the know telling them otherwise. It wasnt that complicated to pick out credible voices and political opportunists.
It is not free movement that is the problem, it is the rights that people carry with them that is the issue. I see no reason why I should be denied the ability to say go to France (or any other EU country) for a holiday, if whilst I was there I should see a job on offer I might be able to apply for it if certain conditions were met, if I was involved in an accident I would hope that I would be treated by some combination of a reciprocal agreement and insurance, but what I would not expect is to get exactly the same rights as a Frenchman who has voted for a French government which stood on a manifesto with commitments paid for by French taxpayers. It is this aspect of freedom of movement that goes beyond a nation state and into the realms of a European Superstate. Unfortunately the creation of a European Superstate is at the very heart of the EU Project and it is unacceptable to me and many other Leave voters. If the EU elite are not prepared to compromise on this in relation to full access to the single market then so be it, we stay out of the single market and see where that takes us. I would like to be part of the single market but not at any cost.
We can leave and have access, i.e. trade, with the single market but at a cost, not that it is "free" now.
But it doesn't EU nationals don't have the right to vote in general elections outside their own country, but I suspect that's not the rights you are talking about. For me that is what stops freedom of movement making the EU a superstate. I will agree it is a stepping stone along the way but if that were to happen it would be generations away and I very much doubt if the right to vote were included in the freedom of movement it would be ratified by any of the current members.
I wasn't making a specific point re the right to vote but more that it is the national taxpayer who pays for the services provided and it is for them to vote in a government to prioritise those services and decide who has access to them. We are led to believe that we pay high taxes to provide, amongst other things, a flagship NHS, I think there is a legitimate debate to be had about who can benefit from those service and under what circumstances. The same is true for other services and benefits paid for by the UK taxpayer.
If you take a look at my earlier post you'll see how quickly EU treaties come along,so I doubt it's generations away. Add to that the EU plans to make certain proposals that will only need majority voting.If that was the case then one voice in complete disagreement will get swept along regardless. Take the current Scottish interest in joining the EU. Both France and Spain have said no way until Scotland is independent from the UK: if it was decided by a majority,then they may well get the nod. Which would then leave Spain having to deal with demands from the Basque region for Independence. Slightly off topic,but there was a feature on Radio 4 a few minutes ago about the housing shortage. A lady was crying that she couldn't get a council house/she had four kids etc.She came came here from South Africa,split up with her husband and lost her job.She is now number 518 on the council waiting list. Right now on TV the BBC are banging the same drum,this time it's a lady with one child.She is also from an African country,and is working,but houses that have been offered are either too expensive or too far away from her work.She's crying because she lives in one room with her nipper and has to share everything with him Now one had a divorce and the other was evicted because she didn't pay her rent,but even though these situations may have been brought upon themselves,(divorcee might have been playing away,the other one might blow her cash on sweets etc),and both are from other countries , according to the BBC it's our fault for not stepping up to the plate for them. Now I have every sympathy for them,but there are thousands of people who were born here/have worked hard/contributed to the system via taxes since leaving school etc,and they don't have a decent house yet.As always it'll be those that do the shit low paying jobs that are doing the waiting. So tell me where is the wisdom in allowing an endless stream of people to settle here when there are not even enough homes for the ones who are already here? Apart from the pressure on the NHS and the education system? I'm sorry,but it just cannot go on...racism...xenophobia...whatever does not come into it,it's just not possible.
OK so we may not have "Free" access to the EU marketplace without freedom of movement. So the answer may be a low tariff trade agreement. This will not be much of a barrier as currency changes alone can make a bigger change to the competitiveness of imports and exports. Financial freedom will be more challenging and a merger between LSE and the German exchange would be beneficial, if it can be resurrected. EU citizens that are working here, or in future coming to a job in the UK, should continue to be welcomed. Speculative economic migrants will not have any assistance and benefits making the trip far less attractive. This alone will reduce the numbers while still having our door and the EU door open (on our terms). Assuming that the EU still sells us say £25 Billion more than we sell them (hopefully that will reduce), then the tariffs will be positive to the Chancellor. We will also save £8-10 Billion nett on EU contributions. So there is money available to help UK manufacturers, agriculture, R&D, NHS, etc. Competitive electricity can be put in place to attract Tata to keep ownership of UK steel manufacturing. Lot's of potential good news. The EU is realistic enough (OK, apart from Juncker perhaps...) to recognise it needs to co-operate and agree a good deal for both the UK and the EU. German and French upcoming elections will mean they cannot risk a downturn in the economies or give the far right parties throughout Europe grounds to take more seats and push for more referendums that could lead to the break-up of the EU as we know it. I sense that the EU and the financial markets are no longer seeing such a black outlook. They will though, continue to come out with hardline statements as they position themselves for the upcoming negotiations after Article 50 is actioned. The Conservatives have done a remarkable job at rebuilding without any lasting damage. Theresa May will make a good PM through this time requiring excellent diplomatic skills. Meanwhile Labour continues to eat itself and looks determined to destroy any chance of election success. This probably helps the World outlook on the UK stability and ability to get through the next 2&1/2 critical years. So far so good; I am optimistic about the future.
