Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

A majority of people still want EU citizens to be able to make the UK their home on less stringent terms than for non-EU nationals, a majority are happy for the UK to voluntarily incorporate ECJ judgements into legislation and an overwhelming majority want full free trade, more so than those who want tariffs.

Says who...?

UK to voluntarily incorporate ECJ judgements into legislation

Into what legislation precisely?

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Says who...?

Said (casting my mind back to about 6am) the un-Daily Mail-ed report. I'm just going through my web history now to find it.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Death threats are never acceptable.

But

Precisely.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why are we raking over and over old ground yet again. The other EU members totally disregarded the UK's viewpoint. The die was cast.

From 2013.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-presses-eu-to-restrict-free-movement-of-people-from-poorer-member-states-9016594.html

Why warn the EU, why not actually apply EU legislations to manage FoM?
I don't think EU member totally disregarded the UK's viewpoint, more so that they had other mechanism to cope which the UK would have also implemented and chose not to.

The bright side is that in less than 2 years, the EU doesn't have to hear the UK moaning anymore!

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

I don't think EU member totally disregarded the UK's viewpoint,

FOM is one of the four key founding principles. Members have to accept the rules. Once individual members request special treatment. Then the whole foundation crumbles. The membership has been allowed to increase without any thought to it's longer term impact.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

FOM is one of the four key founding principles. Members have to accept the rules. Once individual members request special treatment. Then the whole foundation crumbles. The membership has been allowed to increase without any thought to it's longer term impact.

It is and I didn't say the UK should have been allowed to opt out, FoM is definitely indivisible (from the other principles) but the UK decided (and still does) to have very relaxed rules about it.

What you suggest is a very British solution to a British problem, which is not limited to EU migration, non-EU also seems a problem.
i.e. "we cannot manage migration, let's remove it all together and blame someone"

As I said, the silver lining is that once out, the EU doesn't have to listen to this nonsense.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

always_sunny wrote: »

i.e. "we cannot manage migration, let's remove it all together and blame someone"

Which senior British politician has proposed ending immigration?

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

As I said, the silver lining is that once out, the EU doesn't have to listen to this nonsense.

Imposing ones views on another sovereign state suggests that the EU isn't a democracy.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Imposing ones views on another sovereign state suggests that the EU isn't a democracy.

It is not one view but a collective view of member states.
What is the UK doing in a 'European Union' if they don't want to abide to the rules?
Therefore, off you go.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

always_sunny wrote: »

It is not one view but a collective view of member states.
What is the UK doing in a 'European Union' if they don't want to abide to the rules?
Therefore, off you go.

Red herring. Name one EU country which abides by the rules.