May rejects points-based system for EU nationals

[Woden]

[/I]
This is what makes the whole referendum so nebulous, there are many many reasons people voted the way they did. However none of these were on the Ballot paper. In or out of the EU, that's all.

Any determination on any other topic, other than Leaving the EU, is wishful thinking.

Nate

Thing is, it's yet another aspect of the credit campaign that has gone out the window. I don't think there is anything they came up with left to U-turn on?

We can argue for a year and a day about what brexit actually means but every angle of what it could be had been shot down by the very people that wanted us to vote for it.

 

[Amp34]

It's not worth people getting worked up until they see what else is on the table. A points system is still not that useful without a cap on numbers - either as a whole or by sector.

As long as the system proposed is fair and attracts quality that we need, what's the problem?

Most/many points based systems have precisely that. If you get over the number of points needed they you are eligible to apply for a visa/PR based on your specialism and the numbers wanted that year.

 

[Amp34]

Again that's not what they voted for - they voted to Leave the EU. Unless you have some sort of source that shows voters had a particular attraction to a point-based skills system...

Of course what the remain campaign said or did is relevant. The referendum campaign didn't take place in a vacuum - how the other side behaved absolutely did affect Vote Leave and vice versa.

Considering a fair few people (on here and IRL) seem to keep conflating immigration from outside the EU, illegal immigration and refugees with leaving the EU I'd argue it's almost certainly not that clear cut...

 

[Amp34]

or WW3 or being back of the US trade queue or doom and gloom or any number of other lies

Lies on both sides - dont choose to pick one side without considering the nonsense spouted from both camps

WW3 was never mentioned by Cameron or Rwmain, it's a media/leave invention to Cameron's speech that the collapse of the EU would probably bring more instability to Europe...

Obama has very recently (couple of days ago) said that the US is alread dealing with two major trade deals (TTIP and the TPP) and as such a trade deal with us is a lower priority thatlan those two.

To be fair the biggest issue, as usual, is the media reporting of many issues.

 

[muon]

Can we just get over the delusion that we are going to avoid free movement of people within the EEA.

 

[dowie]

Obama has very recently (couple of days ago) said that the US is alread dealing with two major trade deals (TTIP and the TPP) and as such a trade deal with us is a lower priority thatlan those two.

TTIP isn't exactly progressing well... could easily collapse or just drag on for a good while longer

 

[Amp34]

TTIP isn't exactly progressing well... could easily collapse or just drag on for a good while longer

Now the UK is out of the decision making it'll probably collapse even faster... Just in time for the British government to pick up the documents, cross out EU and write UK instead.

Maybe that's why a trade deal will be so quick?!

 

[dowie]

Don't joke about that

 

[awaybreaktoday]

The biggest problem at stake here which everyone is failing to realise is that if the UK signs up to any type of free trade agreement with the EU the UK will be in a very weak position, this is even if the UK gets its way with freedom of movement of people. But this is extremely unlikely as all voting 27 member will not all agree to this, especially the eastern european states. But for argument sake lets say they all do.

Now then being part of the free market means the actual following, we do not participate in decision-making in Brussels, but we loyally abide by Brussels’ decisions. This also means retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. By not being a member of the EU we will be giving up our vote, say and have no presence when crucial decision about the free market are made that effect the very lives of EU citizens. But not just EU citizens but also free market citizens.

Therefore if the UK (A major wealthy country) retains free market access we will go from a long standing influential member to a circle of countries influenced by brussels without a voice in brussels.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

Now the UK is out of the decision making it'll probably collapse even faster... Just in time for the British government to pick up the documents, cross out EU and write UK instead.

Maybe that's why a trade deal will be so quick?!

But why would you want the UK to sign up to TTIP:

1 The NHS

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

2 Food and environmental safety

TTIP’s ‘regulatory convergence’ agenda will seek to bring EU standards on food safety and the environment closer to those of the US. But US regulations are much less strict, with 70 per cent of all processed foods sold in US supermarkets now containing genetically modified ingredients.

3 Banking regulations

TTIP cuts both ways. The UK, under the influence of the all-powerful City of London, is thought to be seeking a loosening of US banking regulations. America’s financial rules are tougher than ours. They were put into place after the financial crisis to directly curb the powers of bankers and avoid a similar crisis happening again. TTIP, it is feared, will remove those restrictions, effectively handing all those powers back to the bankers.

4 Privacy

Remember ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)? It was thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012 after a huge public backlash against what was rightly seen as an attack on individual privacy where internet service providers would be required to monitor people’s online activity. Well, it’s feared that TTIP could be bringing back ACTA’s central elements, proving that if the democratic approach doesn’t work, there’s always the back door. An easing of data privacy laws and a restriction of public access to pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials are also thought to be on the cards.

5 Jobs

The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment.

6 Democracy

TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

 

[413x]

The biggest problem at stake here which everyone is failing to realise is that if the UK signs up to any type of free trade agreement with the EU the UK will be in a very weak position, this is even if the UK gets its way with freedom of movement of people. But this is extremely unlikely as all voting 27 member will not all agree to this, especially the eastern european states. But for argument sake lets say they all do.

Now then being part of the free market means the actual following, we do not participate in decision-making in Brussels, but we loyally abide by Brussels’ decisions. This also means retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. By not being a member of the EU we will be giving up our vote, say and have no presence when crucial decision about the free market are made that effect the very lives of EU citizens. But not just EU citizens but also free market citizens.

Therefore if the UK (A major wealthy country) retains free market access we will go from a long standing influential member to a circle of countries influenced by brussels without a voice in brussels.

I think a good few of us know this.
Worst case for the vote leavers would be that we accept free movement, we pay the fee, eu allow Turkey etc in and we can't vote against it.

Not saying it could happen, but like you say, we are bound by the decisions but have no say, let alone a veto.

But at least we're out!

 

[Cern]

I think a good few of us know this.
Worst case for the vote leavers would be that we accept free movement, we pay the fee, eu allow Turkey etc in and we can't vote against it.

Not saying it could happen, but like you say, we are bound by the decisions but have no say, let alone a veto.

But at least we're out!

Exactly. We'll still end up having to deal with all the consequences of EU decisions, but will no longer have any vote, veto or significant voice.

But at least we'll be sovereign, waving our little red, white and [perhaps not for much longer] blue flags defiantly at the rest of Europe.A Europe that is still going to be right there on our doorstep, getting on with things and dominating the agenda whether we like it or not, whether we have any say in matters or not.

 

[Tefal]

The biggest problem at stake here which everyone is failing to realise is that if the UK signs up to any type of free trade agreement with the EU the UK will be in a very weak position, this is even if the UK gets its way with freedom of movement of people. But this is extremely unlikely as all voting 27 member will not all agree to this, especially the eastern european states. But for argument sake lets say they all do.

Now then being part of the free market means the actual following, we do not participate in decision-making in Brussels, but we loyally abide by Brussels’ decisions. This also means retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. By not being a member of the EU we will be giving up our vote, say and have no presence when crucial decision about the free market are made that effect the very lives of EU citizens. But not just EU citizens but also free market citizens.

Therefore if the UK (A major wealthy country) retains free market access we will go from a long standing influential member to a circle of countries influenced by brussels without a voice in brussels.

But we dont need free market acess for a decebt deal.

Take aouth korea 98% of goods tradrd with the EU sre tariff free

 

[Tefal]

I think a good few of us know this.
Worst case for the vote leavers would be that we accept free movement, we pay the fee, eu allow Turkey etc in and we can't vote against it.

Not saying it could happen, but like you say, we are bound by the decisions but have no say, let alone a veto.

But at least we're out!

But the UK was the country pushing for turkey to join the Eu.


If we'd have stayed in wed havev been voting yes not no

 

[Amp34]

But why would you want the UK to sign up to TTIP:

1 The NHS

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

2 Food and environmental safety

TTIP’s ‘regulatory convergence’ agenda will seek to bring EU standards on food safety and the environment closer to those of the US. But US regulations are much less strict, with 70 per cent of all processed foods sold in US supermarkets now containing genetically modified ingredients.

3 Banking regulations

TTIP cuts both ways. The UK, under the influence of the all-powerful City of London, is thought to be seeking a loosening of US banking regulations. America’s financial rules are tougher than ours. They were put into place after the financial crisis to directly curb the powers of bankers and avoid a similar crisis happening again. TTIP, it is feared, will remove those restrictions, effectively handing all those powers back to the bankers.

4 Privacy

Remember ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)? It was thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012 after a huge public backlash against what was rightly seen as an attack on individual privacy where internet service providers would be required to monitor people’s online activity. Well, it’s feared that TTIP could be bringing back ACTA’s central elements, proving that if the democratic approach doesn’t work, there’s always the back door. An easing of data privacy laws and a restriction of public access to pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials are also thought to be on the cards.

5 Jobs

The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment.

6 Democracy

TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

1. The above points have already been shown in another thread to be either hyperbole, incorrect, or not as bad as they seem when actually explained.

2. I didn't say I wanted anything. Instead was pointing out the UK government is/was one of the biggest backers of the TTIP trade deal, so why would they not just sign it off. They don't have to worry about 26 other countries not wanting it any more.

 

[Tefal]

TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

Right this isnt just a general clause is it thougj?

The way you've wrote it there a company could sue the government for requiring it to meet health and safety standards or for truthful advertising etc.


Is it not for specific cases where a govenrment say contracts a company to run its nuclear plants for the next 40 years then 5 years later decides to shut them all without warning like germany did

Thus leaving the company completely out of pocket for no wrong doing

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I've asked this in FCD, i'd prefer the one Brexit Thread even if it does go round in circles, others seem to prefer individual threads about every talking point.

Waiting on an answer from the mods

There's various ideas floating around. Should have a decision soon.

 

[Amp34]

Right this isnt just a general clause is it thougj?

The way you've wrote it there a company could sue the government for requiring it to meet health and safety standards or for truthful advertising etc.


Is it not for specific cases where a govenrment say contracts a company to run its nuclear plants for the next 40 years then 5 years later decides to shut them all without warning like germany did

Thus leaving the company completely out of pocket for no wrong doing

It is.

Which suddenly makes that point seem perfectly reasonable to most sane people as it basically says renegade on a legal contract and you should to pay damages and/or recompense the party that is out of pocket.

A prime example of my point 1 a couple of posts ago.

 

[bayo000]

But we dont need free market access for a decent deal.

But the UK was the country pushing for turkey to join the Eu.

If we'd have stayed in wed have been voting yes not no

Wouldn't that be ironic if UK can negotiate no free movement with EU but signs up to it with Turkey.
Leaving EU would actually be worth to see the outrage of leave voters.

Anyway I doubt anything will change in regards to EU immigration. Government knows that EU workers are net contributors to economy so why put administration cost to it and reduce that net benefit and in process further sour relationships with EU by doing so.
I can however see EU wide change on when/ how EU nationals can claim benefits when they move country.

 

[datalol-jack]

1. The above points have already been shown in another thread to be either hyperbole, incorrect, or not as bad as they seem when actually explained.

2. I didn't say I wanted anything. Instead was pointing out the UK government is/was one of the biggest backers of the TTIP trade deal, so why would they not just sign it off. They don't have to worry about 26 other countries not wanting it any more.

Well, exactly. People who voted Leave either as a gesture against TTIP or the Conservative government aren't yet in the clear. For one, May's mulling over the option of trying to start the talks with the view of getting a bespoke agreement with the EU modelled on TTIP, a TTIP+ if you will. Whether that's what Europe will acquiesce to, with their own post-TTIP blues and angry citizenry demanding a tough deal, is another matter, but, if this approach succeeds, it opens up a precedent for going to the US with a similar offer in a couple of years, meeting them in the middle of what they had offered the EU previously and any 'improvements' we would've bashed out by then. The US will defend access to its services market, and financial services will have to be negotiated on a sub-federal level, but what's another 10/20/50 years on the Brexit timescale, eh? Anyhow, outside of Europe, the PM is very much a continuity figure who let her chancellor essentially perform a U-turn that was in Osborne's pipeline anyway, shuffled the deck in the 'hated' for some cabinet and talked down the prospect of an early election, which Labour still would not be able to win if their life dependent on it. And something tells me that the same people who only approve of the Tories running the show unopposed only a tiny bit more than Juncker's speeches, won't much like it when May gets a mandate for her own manifesto with a bigger majority.