World Trade Organisation Rules

mwpt

shaggydoo wrote: »

The electorate weren't disenchanted so much as realizing they had been disenfranchised !!! Wanting to control immigration shines a light on the fact that Europe is undemocratic. That the voters/people no longer can control their government's actions.

Of course we could. When is this lie going to stop being repeated? It is over now, please stop the lies.

buglawton

mrginge wrote: »

If Cameron had come back with something even reasonably substantial to restrict immigration then there would have been a landslide remain vote and all this uncertainty would have never existed.

The EU member countries chose to not bend on this issue. That is their right.
They must also therefore take some responsibility for the leave vote and understand that it is at least partially a consequence of their inflexibility and inability to listen to the concerns of their electorate across the continent.

Considering it would only have taken a 2.5% swing to Remain, I'd put 75% responsibility on the EU commission and the other 25% on Cameron for misreading the public mood as well as being a naff negotiator.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Of course we could. When is this lie going to stop being repeated? It is over now, please stop the lies.

If even someone who voted remain thinks being in the EU means we can't control our government it shows just how pervasive the idea is.

An interesting discussion on R4 yesterday between two non-frothy legal types (Saturdays rock!) about who has the right to invoke article 50 - government or parliament.

There are some who would like it to be parliament so they can get a second chance to vote it down but it seems the government can do this instead. This means we've only ever a general election away from mandating a government to take us out of the EU and onshore areas where we've previously pooled sovereignty.

We could vote in a government with a mandate to just leave the EU without article 50 being invoked. Obviously unlikely but as a sovereign nation we can do pretty much as we wish.

The government could even decide tomorrow to end free movement unilaterally - clearly it would cause legal issues but if the government felt this was required (some sort of crisis) there's nothing to stop them.

People wanted their country back. Nice and catchy and as Europe has destroyed many a politicians career it's always been safer to keep a distance and let these ideas develop like a fungus.

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

I quite like the idea of pursing Freedom of Movement to a defined job or study opportunity, no right to claim benefits for 3 years, no right of residence without a formal application. Whether the EU is flexible enough to do this who knows but if it is true that Norway, Switzerland are already discussing that sort of arrangement and that some EU nations are unhappy with the present rules.

I would be happy with that. I'm not against immigration and I accept some is essential. I was always more concerned with sovereignty, lack of EU accountability and the way too many EU countries simply ignored EU legislation whilst we rigidly stuck to the rules.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Of course we could. When is this lie going to stop being repeated? It is over now, please stop the lies.

we can't control EU immigration
we can't control our level of VAT
we can't control who we kick out the country
we can't give preference to UK companies

..................

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

we can't control EU immigration
we can't control our level of VAT
we can't control who we kick out the country
we can't give preference to UK companies

..................

We decided to pool sovereignty with other nations and adopt a common approach in certain areas. It's not lack of control - it's what we agreed to do as part of our democratic process.

We've now decided to have a UK only approach in these areas and will make better or worse decisions about them in a ratio of about 50:50 IMO. You think the ratio will be better because the decision has been delegated to someone a few hundred miles closer to your front door - a bit like an SNP acolyte.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

we can't control EU immigration
we can't control our level of VAT
we can't control who we kick out the country
we can't give preference to UK companies

..................

We voluntarily choose to secede certain controls to belong to a trading union and gain certain benefits from doing so. We also do this to belong to the other organisations (NATO, UN, etc). The people of the country were recently offered to choice to decide if we wanted to continue to secede those controls and voted no (*). This isn't the sort of thing that happens in a country which had "lost control".

(*) Actually, I believe they voted for a variety of mixed things but lumped together it amounted to a no.

Jason74

wotsthat wrote: »

We decided to pool sovereignty with other nations and adopt a common approach in certain areas. It's not lack of control - it's what we agreed to do as part of our democratic process.

We've now decided to have a UK only approach in these areas and will make better or worse decisions about them in a ratio of about 50:50 IMO. You think the ratio will be better because the decision has been delegated to someone a few hundred miles closer to your front door - a bit like an SNP acolyte.

Yep. And in return for this control (which as you say, will probably be about neutral in terms of overall outcome) we've surrendered all the trade and economic advantages that go with being in the EU.

Not our smartest move imho, but 52% of voters disagree with me on that. Hopefully one of two things will happen. Either something will happen during the leave process that causes our decision to be reversed. Or, time proves me (and probably you) wrong and the 52% right. Personally, I'm not too hopeful on either count

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

We decided to pool sovereignty with other nations and adopt a common approach in certain areas. It's not lack of control - it's what we agreed to do as part of our democratic process.

We've now decided to have a UK only approach in these areas and will make better or worse decisions about them in a ratio of about 50:50 IMO. You think the ratio will be better because the decision has been delegated to someone a few hundred miles closer to your front door - a bit like an SNP acolyte.

Indeed the government of the day decided to pool certain amount of decision making with the EU.
The range, scope and depth has increased over the years and the general situation has changed considerably.
In the light of the present situation I wish to regain the control over our affairs.

We held a fair and democratic referendum and the majority vote was in favour of brexit.

I fully understand you would be happy with a world government and no elections at all; but I wouldn't.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Yep. And in return for this control (which as you say, will probably be about neutral in terms of overall outcome) we've surrendered all the trade and economic advantages that go with being in the EU.

Not our smartest move imho, but 52% of voters disagree with me on that. Hopefully one of two things will happen. Either something will happen during the leave process that causes our decision to be reversed. Or, time proves me (and probably you) wrong and the 52% right. Personally, I'm not too hopeful on either count

Can you share your unique knowledge of the UK-EU post brexit trading arrangement?