''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
The immediate impact of this will be a very serious impact on the Prime London property market. While this is not something that will be of enormous interest to you, it will undoubtedly lead to stresses at UK banks, if tens of billions of mortgages have moved from 65% loan-to-value to 120%. At the very least, this will affect the ability of banks to support the economy. It will also feed through in the "wealth effect".
The financial passport is probably gone, or at least the ability to do financial transactions in London on the same basis as elsewhere in Europe will be restricted. If we do nothing financial institutions will assume they are better off moving. Given the inevitable, is it worth trying to get some limits on immigration while salvaging what we can of the test of the single market? To an approximation we will take what we are offered by the EU. It's unlikely to be so bad we prefer nothing at all, and we don't have a lot of choices now we have rejected full membership.
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
Whats happening at PMQs - accurate summary only not Dan Hodges' wet dream wishlist please.
@LOS_Fisher: Cameron let rip at Corbyn: "It might be in my party's interest he stays, but it's not in the national interest. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE MAN, GO"
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
The immediate impact of this will be a very serious impact on the Prime London property market. While this is not something that will be of enormous interest to you, it will undoubtedly lead to stresses at UK banks, if tens of billions of mortgages have moved from 65% loan-to-value to 120%. At the very least, this will affect the ability of banks to support the economy. It will also feed through in the "wealth effect".
The financial passport is probably gone, or at least the ability to do financial transactions in London on the same basis as elsewhere in Europe will be restricted. If we do nothing financial institutions will assume they are better off moving. Given the inevitable, is it worth trying to get some limits on immigration while salvaging what we can of the test of the single market? To an approximation we will take what we are offered by the EU. It's unlikely to be so bad we prefer nothing at all, and we don't have a lot of choices now we have rejected full membership.
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
The immediate impact of this will be a very serious impact on the Prime London property market. While this is not something that will be of enormous interest to you, it will undoubtedly lead to stresses at UK banks, if tens of billions of mortgages have moved from 65% loan-to-value to 120%. At the very least, this will affect the ability of banks to support the economy. It will also feed through in the "wealth effect".
The financial passport is probably gone, or at least the ability to do financial transactions in London on the same basis as elsewhere in Europe will be restricted. If we do nothing financial institutions will assume they are better off moving. Given the inevitable, is it worth trying to get some limits on immigration while salvaging what we can of the test of the single market? To an approximation we will take what we are offered by the EU. It's unlikely to be so bad we prefer nothing at all, and we don't have a lot of choices now we have rejected full membership.
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
When did David Davis become an authority on EU law, or indeed anything?
"Tosh McDonald, the president of Aslef, went further by claiming that he now found it difficult to decide who he hated the most out of Margaret Thatcher and the Parliamentary Labour Party."
There you have it. Blairites are viruses and vermin. At least the left are consistently nasty, even to their own.
What's Tosh short for? I haven't heard that nickname in years bar that chap in The Bill.
Miss P., It was quite a common nickname in the Northumberland Fusiliers (later 3rd Battalion RRF) for chaps whose first name was Tony or Anthony. I think a bit like someone whose surname was Miller was almost invariably called Dusty.
As an aside are nicknames used as much as they were? When I was young everyone had a nickname and was seldom referred to as anything else. For example, I served for two years with a bloke known as "Frub", it was only at his leaving do when I was chatting with his wife that I found out his real name was Stephen.
My nickname is Flip/Flippy - everyone who knows me well uses one of them. I didn't notice how odd it sounds until my husband called to me down an aisle in Tescos. Even my mum called me Flippy.
It came from my bigger brothers inability to pronounce my Christian name. I'd a good friend who's nickname was Furry - I've no idea what his real name is. It never occurred to me to ask.
Those I knew professionally found it most amusing when they met my friends. I'd never allowed them to shorten my name, yet here was everyone using a fun one.
I had several nicknames conferred on me during my working life; from "Reynard" as a young squaddie through to "TCH" (short for, That C*** Hardy) when I was at the Home Office. My wife, except for when she is cross with me (when she calls me by my Christian name) never refers to me by anything than my surname.
I was known as 'JP' all through my school career. They're my initials, but I couldn't fathom on what basis it was chosen. My stepkids have always called me Jonny.
Whats happening at PMQs - accurate summary only not Dan Hodges' wet dream wishlist please.
@LOS_Fisher: Cameron let rip at Corbyn: "It might be in my party's interest he stays, but it's not in the national interest. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE MAN, GO"
... but he thinks only a Brexiteer PM is the only one who can sell an EEA deal to the Leavers in the country.
Absolutely!
A Brexiteer like Boris/Gove can negotiate EEA-membership and then put that forward as the exit they have negotiated after campaigning to exit.
A Remainer pushing EEA would be treated with scorn of trying to ignore the voters of the Referendum.
It's an "only Nixon could go to China" moment.
Doesn't matter who pushes it it will a massive con trick, continued contribution to EU (so not even £160m more for the NHS), no change to immigration from EU and the icing on the cake, no veto to stop Turkey joining (which as Leave told us was imminent). Enjoy
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
The immediate impact of this will be a very serious impact on the Prime London property market. While this is not something that will be of enormous interest to you, it will undoubtedly lead to stresses at UK banks, if tens of billions of mortgages have moved from 65% loan-to-value to 120%. At the very least, this will affect the ability of banks to support the economy. It will also feed through in the "wealth effect".
snip
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
Hasn't he seen the map of who voted for what and where...?
That assumes Sunderland, Barnsley, Rochdale &c &c contain 100% Labour voters rather than 55-60% Labour and 20%+ UKIP voters.
I'm pretty sure it still works out that the average Conservative GE 2015 was more likely to vote Leave than the average Labour GE 2015 voter and I don't even think you need to especially overestimate the split between WWC, asian/black WC, middle class progressive within the Labour ranks, though undoubtedly they exist to some extent.
Here's the rub though. Things go badly from here on in and a serious effort is made by Labour on immigration (and note nearly 2/3 of net immigration in the last decade has been non-EU), and the working class vote, especially WWC, is back in the game. Let Leave make the mistake of assuming that WWC can always be delivered by simple dog-whistles, let them underestimate how pragmatic the working class are/have to be when faced with the real effects of political decisions on their own finances, let them underestimate the ability of the working class to perform the mental gymnastics that would be needed to welcome an EEA solution or even reverse a Brexit vote should it become apparent that that is what is needed.
I have in mind my snap election fantasy Labour EU/migration/population policy and I will share some point soon.
I think Cammo holds Jezza in contempt for his role in the EU vote outcome and now raising his concerns on the risks the vote represents.. real passion in that 'go'
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
I'm tempted to do a straw poll of some local working Men's club - "Leave" voters, "Tories", "Labour" and "Ex-Labour". I'll let you all know the VI splits.
@bigjohnowls Surely you don't believe at this stage only Blairites are against Corbyn? Blairites have been a fairly small group in Labour since 2005-06, yet huge swathes of the party want Corbyn to resign.
No i dont but New Labour will also be criticised in Chilcot though I imagine.
I don't see how New Labour as a whole will be criticised. It was Bliar's project assisted by Straw and Hoon. Others just kept their heads down.
Most New Labour MPs voted for it didnt they?
How many MPs who took part in the vote - from all parties - are still in the House? And how many supported Blair?
Presumably that only elevates Jezza further in your eyes?
Yep, nice bit of reverse psychology from Dave there. Him telling Corbyn to go will only firm up Momentum's stance. And he gets to look statesmanlike too.
I think Cammo holds Jezza in contempt for his role in the EU vote outcome and now raising his concerns on the risks the vote represents.. real passion in that 'go'
I think it's genius. He's now officially co-opted all Corbyn's rebels into the Tories (at least in the eyes of Corbyn's supporters).
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
The immediate impact of this will be a very serious impact on the Prime London property market. While this is not something that will be of enormous interest to you, it will undoubtedly lead to stresses at UK banks, if tens of billions of mortgages have moved from 65% loan-to-value to 120%. At the very least, this will affect the ability of banks to support the economy. It will also feed through in the "wealth effect".
snip
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
Cobblers. That's a suicide mission for any Party.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
I think Cammo holds Jezza in contempt for his role in the EU vote outcome and now raising his concerns on the risks the vote represents.. real passion in that 'go'
Unfortunately for Dave more Lab voters voted REMAIN than Tories
Bloody hell even Cameron is telling Jezza to go....
After you, Dave. What's keeping you ?
Dave's already quit. Nothing wrong with staying on as interim leader. I presume that Labour MPs would grant Corbyn at least that until September.
If Corbyn is still there by there time of the Labour Conference, it is going to be an extraordinary spectacle... The world's popcorn stores are too low to cope.
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
snip
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
Cobblers. That's a suicide mission for any Party.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Indeed,.
The way some people on the Leave side go on you'd think they won 70-30. The mandate is to leave the EU but retain as much of the features of our membership as possible.
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
I think the EU will end up without a financial capital, if we go. Dublin will clearly become a lot more important too.
It's also important to remember that there are lots of businesses that aren't part of financial services, but exist here because of them. Corporate law office sit round the corner from investment banks, because it's all part of the M&A, corporate finance remit. If the investment bankers are now working in Paris, the lawyers will follow them there.
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
What does 'restrict' free movement mean though? There's a big difference between ending it entirely and an emergency brake. As for economic damage to the city and central London property so be it. We had a chance after 2008 to think again about the imbalanced mess our economy was in. We didn't. Perhaps now we will be forced to.
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
snip
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
Cobblers. That's a suicide mission for any Party.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Indeed,.
The way some people on the Leave side go on you'd think they won 70-30. The mandate is to leave the EU but retain as much of the features of our membership as possible.
It pretty much was this in provincial England though, where General Elections are won and lost......
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
As is quite clear from here, the Ultras don't care. No cost is too great.
Oooh Stephen Crabb says he knows how to lay a bet...
ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US
It was very interesting, he didn't say he knew how to place a bet, but he knew how to lay a bet.
I'll get Robert to do an IP Lookup again and find out who Stephen Crabb posts as on PB
He's Indigo.
Damn, caught, at least I can shave this bloody beard off now.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
Bloody hell even Cameron is telling Jezza to go....
After you, Dave. What's keeping you ?
Dave's already quit. Nothing wrong with staying on as interim leader. I presume that Labour MPs would grant Corbyn at least that until September.
If Corbyn is still there by there time of the Labour Conference, it is going to be an extraordinary spectacle... The world's popcorn stores are too low to cope.
''We have to choose which we want: London as the EU's financial and tech capital and continued free movement (albeit with much more freedom re benefits), or to lose a chunk of those industries but to fundamentally change our immigration policy.''
No I think you;re wrong. I think we will get both.
Who is Merkel to tell us we can't? who is Juncker?
When half of Europe completely agrees with us and wants us to stay? When every leader in the region is facing calls for referendums exactly along Britain's lines?
I tend to agree that we could negotiate a better deal. But here's the thing:
If we invoke Article 50, without having EFTA/EEA as a proposed destination, we will start losing financial services companies immediately. Why? Because if you're running Morgan Stanley in London, and you know that in two years - if a deal isn't completed - you are without passporting, and there is business you simply can't do in London anymore. So, you'll invoke the precautionary principle: moving functions that require financial passporting to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw. Not doing so is too great a risk.
snip
I don't think it's gone if we keep free movement, it will be the price to pay if we choose to have no free movement.
David Davis suggested free movement is dead all over the EU. That sounds possible.
In any event, free movement will have to be a red line for the UK. It's too big an issue for UK voters.
I don't think so, it's better to keep our heads down, accept free movement and see what happens.
Cobblers. That's a suicide mission for any Party.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Indeed,.
The way some people on the Leave side go on you'd think they won 70-30. The mandate is to leave the EU but retain as much of the features of our membership as possible.
It pretty much was this in provincial England though, where General Elections are won and lost......
We'll see I guess. I think that Tory voters will accept it to stay in the single market.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
What does 'restrict' free movement mean though? There's a big difference between ending it entirely and an emergency brake. As for economic damage to the city and central London property so be it. We had a chance after 2008 to think again about the imbalanced mess our economy was in. We didn't. Perhaps now we will be forced to.
OK. Let's be uncharitable and see EU immigration as a form of deficit spending. We get younger, healthier, well educated workers as a immeadiate stimulant but pay the wider costs later. Sharply restricting this " deficit spending " at the same time as a large economic shock is another economic shock on top.
... but he thinks only a Brexiteer PM is the only one who can sell an EEA deal to the Leavers in the country.
Absolutely!
A Brexiteer like Boris/Gove can negotiate EEA-membership and then put that forward as the exit they have negotiated after campaigning to exit.
A Remainer pushing EEA would be treated with scorn of trying to ignore the voters of the Referendum.
It's an "only Nixon could go to China" moment.
Doesn't matter who pushes it it will a massive con trick, continued contribution to EU (so not even £160m more for the NHS), no change to immigration from EU and the icing on the cake, no veto to stop Turkey joining (which as Leave told us was imminent). Enjoy
We've been in the EU for 40 years. Leaving it will be a process rather than a one time event.
A step away from EU membership is a good thing. It's the first step, not the end of the journey.
EU leaders are going to empty chair us till art 50 is invoked I think. They won't be messed around by our interal party squabbles, and why should they be.
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
What does 'restrict' free movement mean though? There's a big difference between ending it entirely and an emergency brake. As for economic damage to the city and central London property so be it. We had a chance after 2008 to think again about the imbalanced mess our economy was in. We didn't. Perhaps now we will be forced to.
Losing Passporting will certainly help with rebalancing our economy. When you level the Killing Field overall differentials will reduce.
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
As I said, we'll have to see what happens. I think an EEA deal will work for the Tories. I don't know about Labour, and I'm not concerned.
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
... but he thinks only a Brexiteer PM is the only one who can sell an EEA deal to the Leavers in the country.
Absolutely!
A Brexiteer like Boris/Gove can negotiate EEA-membership and then put that forward as the exit they have negotiated after campaigning to exit.
A Remainer pushing EEA would be treated with scorn of trying to ignore the voters of the Referendum.
It's an "only Nixon could go to China" moment.
Doesn't matter who pushes it it will a massive con trick, continued contribution to EU (so not even £160m more for the NHS), no change to immigration from EU and the icing on the cake, no veto to stop Turkey joining (which as Leave told us was imminent). Enjoy
Maybe but without the directives and regulations we had to obey (outside of those affecting the single market at least)
No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
Yes Richard. If something is unsustainable it won't be sustained. We can and almost certainly will leave the EU but the Coalition assembled by Leave to achieve that is utterly unsustainable.
''The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
Yes it can.
The idea that Juncker and the eurocracy represent Europe is laughable. They don;t represent anybody. Even Merkel is the product of closed shop grand coalition no alternative politics.
Those leaders who are so messianic about free movement have oppositions bellowing for referenda breathing down their necks.
Comments
Angus really needs to rethink his 300 word questions. I've no idea what his point was by the end of it.
I think even he knows the game is up.
*Innocent face*
I'm pretty sure it still works out that the average Conservative GE 2015 was more likely to vote Leave than the average Labour GE 2015 voter and I don't even think you need to especially overestimate the split between WWC, asian/black WC, middle class progressive within the Labour ranks, though undoubtedly they exist to some extent.
Here's the rub though. Things go badly from here on in and a serious effort is made by Labour on immigration (and note nearly 2/3 of net immigration in the last decade has been non-EU), and the working class vote, especially WWC, is back in the game. Let Leave make the mistake of assuming that WWC can always be delivered by simple dog-whistles, let them underestimate how pragmatic the working class are/have to be when faced with the real effects of political decisions on their own finances, let them underestimate the ability of the working class to perform the mental gymnastics that would be needed to welcome an EEA solution or even reverse a Brexit vote should it become apparent that that is what is needed.
I have in mind my snap election fantasy Labour EU/migration/population policy and I will share some point soon.
We might argue about how to measure poverty but no one can truly deny it still exists in Britain today.
The way some people on the Leave side go on you'd think they won 70-30. The mandate is to leave the EU but retain as much of the features of our membership as possible.
It's also important to remember that there are lots of businesses that aren't part of financial services, but exist here because of them. Corporate law office sit round the corner from investment banks, because it's all part of the M&A, corporate finance remit. If the investment bankers are now working in Paris, the lawyers will follow them there.
Prime London down 60%, I stick by that forecast.
Albeit, gardening leave might be a better outcome.
Quite a few
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_MPs_who_voted_for_Iraq_War#Labour_.28244.29
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
What happens to Labour is none of my concern.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social exclusion.shtml
A step away from EU membership is a good thing. It's the first step, not the end of the journey.
@paulwaugh
Now this is interesting. Momentum says event w/ Corbyn/McDonnell now cancelled. Due to "overwhelming" demand
This is why I won't vote for him.
Yes it can.
The idea that Juncker and the eurocracy represent Europe is laughable. They don;t represent anybody. Even Merkel is the product of closed shop grand coalition no alternative politics.
Those leaders who are so messianic about free movement have oppositions bellowing for referenda breathing down their necks.