Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
One of @EalingBlue2 s posts in this thread - 134,000 words. ;)
EU referendum
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
JULES
Well-Known Member
the BBC's independent Fact Check ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
yep
Well-Known Member
Single market or a single regulatory regime?
David Cameron ... now has only one big tune in this referendum campaign. Its jingle is “single market”. Its sad passages lament the idea of “walking away from a market of 500 million people”. He seems to have decided that the Leave campaign’s strongest tune is immigration, his is the economy, and to make us choose between the two. He effectively admits that he cannot control EU immigration (having pretended at two general elections and before his recent Brussels “deal” that he could), but says “it would be madness [to cut immigration] by leaving the single market and trashing our economy”.
The EU’s founding fathers intended, each treaty provides the yeast to bake the next one. The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 followed the Single European Act. It created the European Union and made us all its citizens. The old right of free movement of labour between member-states came to mean not only the right to take up a job offer, but also a right of residence. It also meant a “freedom from discrimination on grounds of nationality” so that any EU citizen could sue if he or she were denied anything – welfare, student places etc – offered to the citizens of one state alone. (Hence, for instance, our inability to deport the EU criminals in our prisons.)
So when the European Community combined the two words in the phrase “single market”, it did not create a market: it created a single control of that market. It imposed a single regulatory regime for trading standards on all member-states. That regime’s bosses were – and are – the European Commission, under the European Court of Justice.
So the single market became a big weapon in undermining distinctive British rights and British citizenship in favour of European ones. That is why we are not allowed to control EU immigration – because “we” do not, in this context, exist. “We” have become part of “them”. That is one of the reasons why a growing number of us want to vote Leave.
If the single market works against Britain in this way, are its economic advantages so overwhelming that we must chew the toad, and stay?
This, I think, is why Mr Cameron likes the phrase “single market” so much. The magic word “market”, and the implication that it is the one and only, help him convince us that, if we weren’t in it, we couldn’t sell anything.
Our only concrete competitive disadvantage from leaving is that we would have to pay the common external tariff, which now stands at a rate of something like (circumstances vary) three per cent – the sort of difference made up by a smallish drop in the value of the pound.
If it would be so hard for us to trade successfully with the EU if we weren’t in the single market, why have US and Canadian exports to the EU risen in the period we have been in it, more than ours?
Try replacing the phrase “single market” with “single regulatory regime”. Leaving a single regulatory regime cannot be the issue of economic life or death of which Mr Cameron warns. What matters is the capacity of 500 million people to buy our goods and services. That is what Michael Gove means when he says that he wants not the single market, but “access” to it. All we need is to be able to sell to those 500 million as we do to any other important market. If the EU, hugely in surplus to Britain, were to prevent this, it would commit, to use a favourite Cameron phrase, a gratuitous “act of economic self-harm”.
So we do not have to decide, on June 23, whether to be poor but control our borders, or rich but full of immigrants. Like most modern Western economies, we need immigrants, and we need European markets. But we need, in both cases, to reclaim our right to make our own decisions about them, as any free country should.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ering-voters-a-false-choice-in-the-eu-refere/
David Cameron ... now has only one big tune in this referendum campaign. Its jingle is “single market”. Its sad passages lament the idea of “walking away from a market of 500 million people”. He seems to have decided that the Leave campaign’s strongest tune is immigration, his is the economy, and to make us choose between the two. He effectively admits that he cannot control EU immigration (having pretended at two general elections and before his recent Brussels “deal” that he could), but says “it would be madness [to cut immigration] by leaving the single market and trashing our economy”.
The EU’s founding fathers intended, each treaty provides the yeast to bake the next one. The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 followed the Single European Act. It created the European Union and made us all its citizens. The old right of free movement of labour between member-states came to mean not only the right to take up a job offer, but also a right of residence. It also meant a “freedom from discrimination on grounds of nationality” so that any EU citizen could sue if he or she were denied anything – welfare, student places etc – offered to the citizens of one state alone. (Hence, for instance, our inability to deport the EU criminals in our prisons.)
So when the European Community combined the two words in the phrase “single market”, it did not create a market: it created a single control of that market. It imposed a single regulatory regime for trading standards on all member-states. That regime’s bosses were – and are – the European Commission, under the European Court of Justice.
So the single market became a big weapon in undermining distinctive British rights and British citizenship in favour of European ones. That is why we are not allowed to control EU immigration – because “we” do not, in this context, exist. “We” have become part of “them”. That is one of the reasons why a growing number of us want to vote Leave.
If the single market works against Britain in this way, are its economic advantages so overwhelming that we must chew the toad, and stay?
This, I think, is why Mr Cameron likes the phrase “single market” so much. The magic word “market”, and the implication that it is the one and only, help him convince us that, if we weren’t in it, we couldn’t sell anything.
Our only concrete competitive disadvantage from leaving is that we would have to pay the common external tariff, which now stands at a rate of something like (circumstances vary) three per cent – the sort of difference made up by a smallish drop in the value of the pound.
If it would be so hard for us to trade successfully with the EU if we weren’t in the single market, why have US and Canadian exports to the EU risen in the period we have been in it, more than ours?
Try replacing the phrase “single market” with “single regulatory regime”. Leaving a single regulatory regime cannot be the issue of economic life or death of which Mr Cameron warns. What matters is the capacity of 500 million people to buy our goods and services. That is what Michael Gove means when he says that he wants not the single market, but “access” to it. All we need is to be able to sell to those 500 million as we do to any other important market. If the EU, hugely in surplus to Britain, were to prevent this, it would commit, to use a favourite Cameron phrase, a gratuitous “act of economic self-harm”.
So we do not have to decide, on June 23, whether to be poor but control our borders, or rich but full of immigrants. Like most modern Western economies, we need immigrants, and we need European markets. But we need, in both cases, to reclaim our right to make our own decisions about them, as any free country should.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ering-voters-a-false-choice-in-the-eu-refere/
yep
Well-Known Member
Mancini Manus Domini
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,672
Should the vote to leave the EU be successful how do those who want this feel about those EU citizens currently living and working in the UK? Is a line drawn here and they get to stay? Or do you make them return to their homelands?
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 18,687
Sorry if this has been covered already today but I thought Farrage's poster recreating Nazi Germany was disgusting!
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, they stay. I've never heard a suggestion otherwise from any quarter. This is about managing future migration flows, not penalising anyone already here.
Mancini Manus Domini
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,672
Glad to hear it.
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 18,687
It's more a case of how unwelcome many of the skilled people will feel post 23 June. The marketing manager at my works is German and she is thinking about leaving.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
They get to stay. Except the French.
In fact it´s the law; if you have signed the Vienna Convention on treaties.
“Withdrawal from a treaty does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination”
There will be no change to their situation, whatever the result of the referendum.
http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm
- Status