World Trade Organisation Rules

mrginge

Rinoa wrote: »

Just so we know your position, how many people should the UK admit before controlling immigration.

500,000 per year, 1,000,000 per year, what about 5,000,000 per year.

Would you be happy with 5,000,000 per year. No waffle please, just yes or no.

No one on the remain side will ever answer this question, because as soon as they do they would also have to answer the follow up '...and what happens if we go over that number?'

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

That we would leave the EU. It said nothing about what deal we would sign up to after that fact. We could sign up to free trade, free movement, contributions while not being part of the EU and democracy would be upheld. The referendum vote was stupid. It lumped reasonable leave voters in with bigots and that is the only reason they won. I consider it fair dues that the same referendum question now leaves a lot of room for compromise after the fact.



Only if you accept that democracy trumps all else including self harm. To be frank, I personally would be shocked if they ignored the vote in this case but I'm not shocked that politicians ignore the will of the people in many many cases.

it would seem that simply moves the goal posts as to whom should decide what self harm means

mwpt

Rinoa wrote: »

Just so we know your position, how many people should the UK admit before controlling immigration.

500,000 per year, 1,000,000 per year, what about 5,000,000 per year.

Would you be happy with 5,000,000 per year. No waffle please, just yes or no.

No.

(more characters)

Rinoa

mwpt wrote: »

No.

(more characters)

Thanks for your honest answer.

So I guess it just depends what each individual believes to be manageable.

mwpt

Rinoa wrote: »

Thanks for your honest answer.

So I guess it just depends what each individual believes to be manageable.

My opinion is that free movement of people in Europe was a good step towards more harmonisation (in the sense that we do not do battle, I don't want to get rid of national cultures) and allowed people who needed work to move to where the work was. We have the work. I do however accept that many people are less inclined to look to the bigger picture and that free movement has resulted in the opposite effect in Britain with many people becoming less tolerant of foreigners. Whether they would have been intolerant anyway is unknown. But unfortunately, we have taken a regressive step imo. So in that sense I am willing to consider that perhaps the EU should have been more pragmatic about the situation. In order to stabilise and reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes, they could have agreed to a temporary upper limit on EU immigration into the UK for a period of time.

So immigration has indeed resulted in certain pressures in Britain but in my opinion these pressures have been largely exaggerated. We are in a period where we lived beyond our means for some time and now that economic growth in developed nations is trending down, the world globalising (jobs going offshore) and our population ageing, we are under increasing financial pressure in how to pay for the standard of living that we are used to. Do you at least accept this last point as true? This has resulted in people blaming immigrants for the austerity we are living under. But this austerity is being applied across the world, not just Britain. Jobs are being lost in developed nations across the world, not just Britain.

So, in my opinion, we've robbed ourselves of a lot of good things by blaming the EU on a global issue.

But you guys just don't see it like that. You are aware that there is a problem but your focus is laser sharp on the EU. Every negative article you find about the EU you post, you are looking for problems and so naturally you are not considering there is a bigger problem.

That isn't meant as an insult, just a thought dump of my observations.

Kohoutek

Rinoa wrote: »

He thinks big business is now too big. Doesn't agree with ftse 100 company heads being paid £5m per year- want to empower shareholders to prevent this. He doesn't believe city traders are worth their bonuses, thinks they just got lucky,not sure what he intends to do about that exactly but impression I got is that the City won't be getting preferential treatment in future.

Overall I reckon he will go for WTO terms rather than compromise with EU. Compromise will mean we have to adhere to more Brussels regulations so I reckon it's better to have a clean break.

If Gove's aim is to reject big banks, big business and the EU single market, then given the importance of those to the UK's economy, surely he needs to have a very clear plan on what to replace those with?

I don't see any plan from his speech. I just see vacuous populist soundbites.

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

...But unfortunately, we have taken a regressive step imo. So in that sense I am willing to consider that perhaps the EU should have been more pragmatic about the situation. In order to stabilise and reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes, they could have agreed to a temporary upper limit on EU immigration into the UK for a period of time.

But you know perfectly well that such a change is not possible. It was made clear to DC that there would be no concessions on free movement.

LHW99

jobs going offshore

Jobs are being lost in developed nations across the world

Inconsistent?

mwpt

LHW99 wrote: »

Inconsistent?

No, not inconsistent. A lot of low wage jobs are moving from developed nations to developing nations. We also have automation in the mix.

This will suppress wages no matter what people think about free movement from the EU.

mwpt

Kohoutek wrote: »

What in particular that Gove is saying makes a lot sense (serious question)?

His uncanny inability to move his hands without moving his lips?

http://imgur.com/gallery/VlZNeuR