EU: No concessions for UK on single market

Kohoutek

Conrad wrote: »

Reading the FT yesterday confirmed the EU economically is far more precarious that us, and note things like we e created more jobs than the rest of them in the last five years.

This idea that they have us over a barrel is completely misguided. Furthermore we are the major local military power and give border states significant protection. That can be bargained for

Be a bit more imaginative man

I'm being realistic - a quality you seem to be very resistant to.

We do have a large military by world standards and certainly European standards, but I don't see how that would help much or at all because NATO guarantees US military support if needed.

The EU's trade negotiator certainly thinks the EU has the UK over a barrel - see this video posted on another thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

Mistermeaner

So we have the biggest army and want people to do as we say, plus have just voted to have less of 'them' coming over here.

Has anything similar happened in Europe before?

HornetSaver

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The whole EU might yet unravel completely.

If we don't get economically obliterated outside the EU it'll give anti-eu movements on the continent far more traction. Particularly if we do ok without an EU trade deal.

If we don't have an EU trade deal of sorts, then the City of London is in a very poor position.

Hate to agree with Conrad, but comments about there being no EU à la carte should come as no surprise - if the British electorate believed that it was on the table they would not have voted to Leave. Furthermore David Cameron is right - if the British electorate believed that Britain held a genuine emergency brake, that probably would have been enough for the 2% swing Remain needed.

The statement that really does concern me is Cecilia Malmstrom's one. If we are unable to wrap up our long-term future relationship with the EU under Article 50 (i.e. under qualified majority), then we would be stuck with an interim measure which is nothing like our long term vision of the relationship we would like, but which would require unanimity among 27 countries to change later on.

mwpt

Scarpacci wrote: »

To be clear, I certainly wouldn't claim the ideal number of EU migrants ought to be 0. But we simply can not have Britain acting as job creation scheme for the entirety of the much poorer Eastern Bloc and the slower growing Eurozone.

Why not? London does it for the rest of you.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Why not? London does it for the rest of you.

The arrogance is real.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

Why not? London does it for the rest of you.

You highlight the attitude towards a large chunk of England and Wales which basically sunk the Remain campaign.

I think it was the worst run campaign team I can ever remember.

kabayiri

Negotiating stance is an interesting point.

The 27 country Union may negotiate as one collective, but on an economic front there are definite weak points.

If discussions move towards UK being outside of a free trade zone, then a European state like Ireland is sunk basically. They won't thank their fellow Union members for sacrificing them at the altar.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

You highlight the attitude towards a large chunk of England and Wales which basically sunk the Remain campaign.

I think it was the worst run campaign team I can ever remember.

It isn't my attitude, I was merely using it as a prop to indicate that I could say exactly the same thing the previous poster was saying at a smaller scale.

If there are jobs to be filled I would rather let people who need them move to where the jobs are. Of course, the world would be a nicer place if jobs were distributed evenlyacross the planet and countries but that just doesn't seem to be reality so we have to make do.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

It isn't my attitude, I was merely using it as a prop to indicate that I could say exactly the same thing the previous poster was saying at a smaller scale.

If there are jobs to be filled I would rather let people who need them move to where the jobs are. Of course, the world would be a nicer place if jobs were distributed evenlyacross the planet and countries but that just doesn't seem to be reality so we have to make do.

I have advocated giving the jobs to people from the subcontinent. But somehow, "immigrants" has become redefined to Eastern Europeans now.

The reality is that we can send work anywhere in the world now, so we should be able to take labour from wherever it is cheapest.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

I have advocated giving the jobs to people from the subcontinent. But somehow, "immigrants" has become redefined to Eastern Europeans now.

I don't want to cause offence because you seem a pleasant polite person but I have to speak my mind: That doesn't make sense and doesn't ring true about the leave campaign at all.

Your side (I'm trying not to personalise this) are now trying to sell us the idea that they're not racists after all and rather than Eastern Europeans coming here taking jobs they would rather it was people from other parts of the world. Riiiight....