Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Amazer]

I think that, if other countries have demands which are similar to those of the UK (the Netherlands, for example), they should get the same level of attention and concessions.

While there certainly is a sizeable group in The Netherlands which opposes freedom of movement... it certainly isn't the position of the Dutch government.

 

[Michel H]

Limiting it to a maximum = scrapping free movement

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Think about freedom of speech. It does exist, right? But it is also somewhat limited: see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

 

[JoeMorgue]

Does anyone see the fail/success of a UK Brexit as a litmus test for other EU countries? Will the fail/success of Brexit change the odds of any other country at least trying (on something reasonably considerable as a 'actually trying' level) to leave the EU?

 

[Amazer]

Think about freedom of speech. It does exist, right? But it is also somewhat limited: see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

Yes and freedom of speech applies to everyone... everyone gets to exercise it...

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Amazer]

Think about freedom of speech. It does exist, right? But it is also somewhat limited: see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

Sure... but that freedom of speech applies to everyone... it's not limited to some arbritary number. If it did apply to only a limited number of people, it wouldn't be freedom of speech.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Think about freedom of speech. It does exist, right? But it is also somewhat limited: see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

As is freedom of movement; I can currently enter any EU country, but I cannot freely enter anyone's home. Freedom of speech is limited in scope, but not in entitlement; freedom for the first 10,000 people who apply for permission to speak freely would not be freedom of speech.

Dave

 

[Olmstead]

I think that, if other countries have demands which are similar to those of the UK (the Netherlands, for example), they should get the same level of attention and concessions.

But every country in the EU has demands, and whether a demand is met depends on what the other Member States want (in theory at least). Why should the demands of the UK be any different?

 

[Amazer]

Does anyone see the fail/success of a UK Brexit as a litmus test for other EU countries? Will the fail/success of Brexit change the odds of any other country at least trying (on something reasonably considerable as a 'actually trying' level) to leave the EU?

In a way I think it is... if the UK can show that it's equally successful (if not more successful) outside the EU than it was within then the EU will disintegrate quite quickly and rightly so because then the EU isn't all that great as it's made out to be.

If Brexit turns out to be the disaster we all think it will be... then I think the anti-EU mood will die down for a couple of years at least.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.

1.Why would other net payers not demand the same deal?
2.Why would net recipient go along with this?

- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

3.Why would countries that export a lot of labor go along with that?
4.Why wouldn't other countries also demand quotas on other things to benefit their citizens?

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)?

No. If you let the UK make the rule for the EU, you might as well rename the EU into British Empire 2.0.

Would it justify a second referendum[...]

There is currently a deal on offer. If that deal does not justify a second referendum then I don't see why any other deal would.

 

[Tolls]

And 10,000?
There's a reason we have more than that coming in each year.
It's the same reason the plucked-out-of-the-air-with-no-though-whatsoever 100,000 figure for reducing immigration when TM was Home Secretary was unachievable. It ignored the reality of why these people were coming here.

And finally, when we had the opportunity to limit the movement of the newly added eastern states, we chose not to.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I think that, if other countries have demands which are similar to those of the UK (the Netherlands, for example), they should get the same level of attention and concessions.

This implies that the UK gets to decide which demands get prime attention and where concessions need to be made. How is this remotely sane?

 

[Arcade22]

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.
- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

The EU would never accept let alone offer anything even remotely close those changes just to keep Britain in the EU, especially since the UK already has a rebate on its contributions to the EU budget.

Seriously. Britain represents 13.8% of the EU GDP and 12.9% of its total population. They are not going to change everything just to keep Britain in the EU. Some people seem to seriously have an inflated sense of how important and powerful the UK is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes and freedom of speech applies to everyone... everyone gets to exercise it...

BUt they each only get so much. After they use that up they are legally obligated to be quiet or face severe consequences.

 

[Earthborn]

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).

Let's assume that when you buy something in a shop, you demand as much change as what you paid. Let's assume that when you get insurance, you only have to pay in premiums whatever you get back. Imagine a lottery where everyone just wins their money back.

The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.

I guess the UK could have invested in its own poor regions itself, thereby reducing the need for funding of the cohesion policy. It could then have argued that the cohesion policy could be downsized.

 

[Klimax]

No, not scrapping one of the four freedoms (free movement of people), just limiting it to a maximum of 10,000 people annually (for the UK, unless it agrees to more).

How would you like it if it was targeted at you and your country?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I thought UK wasn't part of the Schengen anyway, or is that not the "Freedom of Movement" we're talking about?

 

[angrysoba]

I thought UK wasn't part of the Schengen anyway, or is that not the "Freedom of Movement" we're talking about?

It’s not part of Schengen so there are passport controls but EU citizens are free to live and work in the UK.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I thought UK wasn't part of the Schengen anyway, or is that not the "Freedom of Movement" we're talking about?

Couple things to distinguish:

1)Visa-free travel: You don't have to request a visum in advance but only need your ID to enter a country. That exists between a lot of countries, eg most(?) of the EU countries and the USA.

2)Freedom of movement: This is basically the single market in labor. You can take a job in any EU/EEA country and have a right to be treated like a local citizen. This means you can settle anywhere in the EU just like a US-American can settle in any US state.

3)Schengen: This does away with border controls. Once you have the same standards for goods and visas you don't really need border checks anymore. It's enough to control the external area of the region.
This saves a lot of money, not just for border guards but also by cutting down on travel time. No more waiting at checks=faster delivery times.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Am I the only one to see some similarities between the brexit supporters and the freeman on the land crowd?

Both want something for nothing and expect the rest of the world to conform to their wishes if they just say the magic words often enough.

 

[Pixel42]

Does anyone see the fail/success of a UK Brexit as a litmus test for other EU countries? Will the fail/success of Brexit change the odds of any other country at least trying (on something reasonably considerable as a 'actually trying' level) to leave the EU?

The greatest contribution Britain is ever likely to make to the success of the EU would be to demonstrate, by leaving it, what a bloody stupid thing that is to do.