413x – unlikely in GD, a few people did say they changed their mind, though based on what they’d gathered throughout the campaign as opposed to here.
Now then, seems I've been pre-empted. And since it appears we are still implying that the EU has shackled us somehow ala BoJo, I’ll just link this rebuttal:
http://infacts.org/boris-johnson-wrong-eu-single-market-hurts-growth/. Having saved a page, let’s outline the Remain view of this immigration control song and dance.
I don't think it is a big assumption, I can't think of a single leave campaigner that would support a deal which included free movement of people. After Brexit, these leave campaigners are likely to end up in charge of the country.
You're of course right that there is a possibility that Boris et al will flip flop around on this, but I think it is highly unlikely, as it would cause untold damage to his support from the people who voted leave.
We'll end up with some sort of trade deal, with low or no tarrifs, similar to Iceland or Canada. We don't need to accept free movement of people for this. The worse case scenario is WTO rules, which wouldn't be all that bad.
Any control on EU migration is necessarily going to involve leaving the EU and not having free access to the EU market, and also losing all of the free trade agreements that the EU already have in place (all talk of using Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, like the whole page dedicated to it on UKIP's website, is a load of tosh, we are subject to EJC ruling which is a proxy for the EEC).
So ultimately the choice becomes immigration control, or free market access, but not both. Notwithstanding that the EU won't just hand a free trade EU deal out to us on a plate as they want others to follow suit in a domino effect that could bring the EU project down, their self interests in protecting that trump their self interests of dealing with us.
Perhaps you can't, Judgeneo. But then what's new about a gaping chasm between the grassroots and ideologues and the people in charge of Vote Leave? Bloggers and apparatchiks don't always get to ride politicians into power, either.
Once more, we are thus at an impasse, which can only be resolved by a decisive vote either way, since you and I and perky et al have a different perception of political and economic realities based on what facts and projections are out there. But put simply -- no. The Leave camp doesn't even have enough active cabinet members to make that claim stick, let alone the realities of Tory splits on things other than Europe and the need to hold the party together to get anything done with a small majority.
However, in way of illustration of one such point of difference, let's add the Conservative vote (36.9% -- not all oppose free movement) and all the UKIP vote (12.6%), on a turnout of 66.1% -- still does not a majority make; particularly a majority which would sacrifice the benefits of the single market to appease the protectionist and nationalist lobby. Needless to say this lobby is anchored in the older demographic, which won't be around to bear the full brunt of consequences of their vote, and thus can safely lodge whatever protest vote they like, for whatever or no good reason at all.
What's also quite important to note, is that the most frequently highlighted examples of perceived negatives with free movement rights end up demonstrating the lack of enforcement of the powers we do have -- be it the minimum wage regulation or key criteria (agreed EU-wide and flaunting of which would lead to deportation) for stays longer than 3 months being checked in an organised, well-funded and consistent manner across regions and industries, to reductions in public spending and under-investment in housing, community services and infrastructure to meet demand, to active crackdowns on rogue landlords, gang-masters, site managers etc -- rather than a need for any new powers, or higher barriers to entry, work and collaboration.
Unless attacking the numbers as a proxy for an isolationist tendency, the economic migrants as people, scapegoating said migrants for the nations' problems or their point of origin is the political objective; as exemplified by Nige and Leave.EU. But that comes with the economic and social implications of: accepting lower activity; young population decreases; blatant discrimination -- incompatible with the free, global market ethos or any recognisable form of a fair and civil society; and social divisions and skill shortages.
Indeed, if you are not betting on black-sheep backbenchers to take power, and are considering sensible economics on the ground, the two countries most used as aspirational models for our handling of immigration still maintain the following net levels: Canada -- 260,000 (rate per 1,000 -- 5.66), and wants 285,000 as a target; Australia -- 212,000 (rate per 1,000 -- 5.65).
This is compared to our current level of: 336,000 (rate per 1,000 -- 2.54).
So my point remains: there's no reason to destabilise a trading bloc we benefit from, bare the costs of the split to our economy and social and political divisions on top of that, with years of uncertainty; only then to return a virtual power, which won't make any material difference to the situation or its perception by the most vociferous and populist Leave core voters, and will cost us influence, political capital and reputation abroad.
And so your idealistic notion of immigration 'control', which still has a question mark over it, is out of sync with what it means to the hard-line anti-immigration sentiment on the doorstep coming from that camp, and indeed what they would want to happen, without actually being the majority view.
Shaping the single market from within and in the long-term and pursuing enforcement of regulations and powers already in place, as opposed to this bizarre ‘free-market nationalism’, to address the push factors of continental migration jointly, is a far surer bet for meaningfully reducing levels sensibly and benefitting our economy and generations to come. This degree of control is outside the powers of nations that only have an FTA with the EU.
Stabilising the continent is very much the point as a strategic objective too, and paying a contribution fee that’s just over the cost of a comprehensive Netflix package, nearly exactly what the TV licence costs or much less than a decent broadband option, per person per week, is more than worth it and the economic benefit of the single market that comes with it. A WTO gamble, with years of uncertainty and volatility and political brutality, costing less and delivering more? Don’t make me laugh!
I’ve probably missed something, but for lack of time this will do. The NIESR research is well worth a read; as it not only examines the EEA option and its potential alternatives, but also looks at what MigrationWatch has been putting out, alongside other sources on the topic.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
