Merged Now What?

[Planigale]

What??? Your idiotic country got idiotic trillion of exceptions and special treatments and yet it is not enough. You did not even bothered to exercise limit when it was on table during entry of C and E Europe into EU. (Unlike some other countries) Last negotiations you got YET ANOTHER truck load of exceptions. Still bloody hell not enough???

They were right. The best thing to happen to EU is to get rid of ungrateful idiocy called GB.

ETA: And hopefully no good deals for you.

I am a bit confused some here tell me that freedom of movement is an absolute inalienable principle that can not be negotiated on. Whilst here I am being told off because my government failed to exercise limitations of freedom of movement. Is it an absolute or not. Did other countries negotiate a limit of freedom of movement on the accession of the ex communist countries of East / Central / south Europe or not. If other countries could negotiate a restriction why did it become such an inviolable principle for the UK?

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

 

[Aepervius]

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

In this case it is. Since it is in the EU the UK kept getting exception. the biggest one : you still have the pound. Freedom of movement (good+people) is the biggest point of the EU again which is why when people started to put up frontier control due to refugee it was such a big thing and protested against, and only accepted as a very short term measure (months).

But in spite of already having preferential treatment you kept asking for more.

I am sorry, but at some point you gotta point out that the blame is SOLELY on the UK side. heck the only blame I put on the EU, is to NOT have told the UK to get a hike earlier and not give so many concession for people who turn their back on a whim.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

Sure. point us what exception it is which as great as the concession UK got, like keeping their currency, or the rebatte.

 

[Tolls]

On a slightly different point, someone mentioned above that students used to do a lot of the fruit picking during university holidays, I don't know, but how much of the shift away from that is due to the pressure to do work experience (even unpaid internships)? Certainly when I went to university (again a long time ago) industry experience was mandatory on my course, if you couldn't get it, addition studies were set for the breaks.

In part, possibly.
Also, having to move somewhere to earn minimum wage (or thereabouts) compared to staying where you are and doing the same.

And, of course, the growing season is now much longer with modern techniques. The strawberry season is now some 3 times longer than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I am a bit confused some here tell me that freedom of movement is an absolute inalienable principle that can not be negotiated on. Whilst here I am being told off because my government failed to exercise limitations of freedom of movement. Is it an absolute or not. Did other countries negotiate a limit of freedom of movement on the accession of the ex communist countries of East / Central / south Europe or not. If other countries could negotiate a restriction why did it become such an inviolable principle for the UK?

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

Here you go, this is what the EU itself has to say. Freedom of movement is a basic principle of the EU, but whenever large groups of new countries join, the EU phases in the freedom of movement to limit sudden impacts on labour markets. Should some countries, like the UK, decline to take advantage of this, it seems somewhat hypocritical of them to then whine about EU inflexibility on freedom of movement.

The 2003 Accession Treaty allowed Member States to restrict during a seven-year transitional period the right of workers from 8 of the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (EU-8) to freely move to another Member State to work (namely Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia).

The aim of these transitional arrangements was to allow Member States to gradually introduce free movement step-by-step during this period, to avoid labour market disturbances by a sudden inflow of workers following accession to the EU. Such transitional arrangements have applied in most of the EU's enlargements. There were three phases (2+3+2 years) in the 2003 transitional arrangements during which different, increasingly stricter conditions applied as to the conditions under which Member States could restrict labour market access. Member States could, however, open their labour markets at any stage. Typically Member States that restricted access to their labour markets applied work permit schemes.

3 Member States (Ireland, UK and Sweden) opened their labour markets from the beginning on 1 May 2004 while the remaining 12 restricted access to their labour markets. In turn, 3 of the EU-8 Member States (Hungary, Poland and Slovenia) used reciprocal measures and restricted access to their labour markets for nationals from those Member States that restricted labour market access for their nationals.

In addition, no one that I'm aware of has provided any evidence of the actual problems EU freedom of movement has caused the UK.

 

[The Don]

I am a bit confused some here tell me that freedom of movement is an absolute inalienable principle that can not be negotiated on. Whilst here I am being told off because my government failed to exercise limitations of freedom of movement. Is it an absolute or not. Did other countries negotiate a limit of freedom of movement on the accession of the ex communist countries of East / Central / south Europe or not. If other countries could negotiate a restriction why did it become such an inviolable principle for the UK?

I've highlighted the key word. There was a hotly-debated restriction which resulted in new countries coming into the EU having limited access. In effect it was a delay in the granting of full rights of movement.

Instead what the UK is asking for is the removal of a right which is already in place - this is incompatible with EU membership.

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

The EU is not beyond reproach but the UK wanted to be exempt from the core principles.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

The UK is unique in terms of the breadth and depth of the exceptions and concessions that we have received.

 

[ceptimus]

Liechtenstein is a member of EFTA but not the EU. It's signed up to the Schengen Area and the EEA, but it DOES NOT allow free movement of people.

However, it's so tiny that free movement of people wouldn't be a practical possibility - so it doesn't really set any precedent for a future similar arrangement between the UK and the EU.

 

[Belz...]

Je think que vous etes in erreur:

pile=tail, face=head, surement?

Arrêtez de scrapper ma langue, tabarnaque!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I am a bit confused some here tell me that freedom of movement is an absolute inalienable principle that can not be negotiated on. Whilst here I am being told off because my government failed to exercise limitations of freedom of movement. Is it an absolute or not. Did other countries negotiate a limit of freedom of movement on the accession of the ex communist countries of East / Central / south Europe or not. If other countries could negotiate a restriction why did it become such an inviolable principle for the UK?

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

Freedom of movement of people in the EU is a founding principle of the EU. That politicians did not always abide by the principle 100% doesn't make it any less so.

In the case we are talking about the accession countries had their freedom of movement limited initially as a condition of their joining and then the UK for some reason chose not to partake of that exemption. Rightly in my opinion.

There was a reason for it though. There is no reason to allow an exemption to the UK on freedom of movement. There's no case to be made that this will benefit the EU members. There's no practical reason why the UK can't allow it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Liechtenstein is a member of EFTA but not the EU. It's signed up to the Schengen Area and the EEA, but it DOES NOT allow free movement of people.

However, it's so tiny that free movement of people wouldn't be a practical possibility - so it doesn't really set any precedent for a future similar arrangement between the UK and the EU.

Literally a "how many angels fit on a pinhead" sort of argument in this case, one might say.

Arrêtez de scrapper ma langue, tabarnaque!

Comme disent les français, "Ça fait chier, eh?"

Loose translation: That sucks bigtime, no?
Or in Canadian French: Ça suke le bigtime! Ne pas vrais?

***

(I stayed honest and on topic in the first reply. In my défense.)

 

[Belz...]

Or in Canadian French: Ça suke le bigtime! Ne pas vrais?

I don't suppose you've actually ever been in Québec, then.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I don't suppose you've actually ever been in Québec, then.

Just pulling your leg.

 

[Klimax]

I am a bit confused some here tell me that freedom of movement is an absolute inalienable principle that can not be negotiated on. Whilst here I am being told off because my government failed to exercise limitations of freedom of movement. Is it an absolute or not. Did other countries negotiate a limit of freedom of movement on the accession of the ex communist countries of East / Central / south Europe or not. If other countries could negotiate a restriction why did it become such an inviolable principle for the UK?

Can I emphasise personally I support the EU principles. That does not put the EU beyond reproach though.

Having particular exceptions is not unique to the UK. Germany has exceptions based on its constitutional law.

Looks like this got already addressed...

Here you go, this is what the EU itself has to say. Freedom of movement is a basic principle of the EU, but whenever large groups of new countries join, the EU phases in the freedom of movement to limit sudden impacts on labour markets. Should some countries, like the UK, decline to take advantage of this, it seems somewhat hypocritical of them to then whine about EU inflexibility on freedom of movement.


In addition, no one that I'm aware of has provided any evidence of the actual problems EU freedom of movement has caused the UK.

We can do bit better:
European migrants are not just paying their way, they're paying our way too

 

[Belz...]

Just pulling your leg.

Sacrement!

 

[Planigale]

In this case it is. Since it is in the EU the UK kept getting exception. the biggest one : you still have the pound. Freedom of movement (good+people) is the biggest point of the EU again which is why when people started to put up frontier control due to refugee it was such a big thing and protested against, and only accepted as a very short term measure (months).

But in spite of already having preferential treatment you kept asking for more.

I am sorry, but at some point you gotta point out that the blame is SOLELY on the UK side. heck the only blame I put on the EU, is to NOT have told the UK to get a hike earlier and not give so many concession for people who turn their back on a whim.

Sure. point us what exception it is which as great as the concession UK got, like keeping their currency, or the rebatte.

So are you going to complain about Denmark and Sweden? Sweden is legally obliged to join the Euro but is avoiding it. The UK did make an attempt but the ERM was not a success for the UK.

 

[Planigale]

What??? Your idiotic country got idiotic trillion of exceptions and special treatments and yet it is not enough. You did not even bothered to exercise limit when it was on table during entry of C and E Europe into EU. (Unlike some other countries) Last negotiations you got YET ANOTHER truck load of exceptions. Still bloody hell not enough???

They were right. The best thing to happen to EU is to get rid of ungrateful idiocy called GB.

ETA: And hopefully no good deals for you.

This view may be personal but if it represents an EU view just shows that the EU is anti-democratic. The people of the UK voted democratically to exert a right under art 50 of the EU treaty. I personally think this is wrong I personally think freedom of movement and trade is a good thing and wanted the UK to join the Euro when the time is right. But in a democracy there comes a point when you have to accept the majority decision. It is reprehensible to think that any group should be penalised for exerting a legal and democratic right.

It is worth remembering that for many years only the UK and Germany (not France!) were nett contributors to the EU in cash terms. Even now the UK after the rebates is the second largest nett contributor to the EU (more than France a larger country and we are often told a wealthier one). Now I accept per capita other countries contribute more. But it is absurd to pretend the UK contributed nothing to the EU.

It is always worth trying to argue the other side of the case; you get insight to where your opponent is coming from.

In the UK we often hear how much better funded France's national services are. How France can protect it's culture and businesses, and agriculture. Yet for all this why does the UK end up having paid so much more for the EU than France?

 

[The Don]

This view may be personal but if it represents an EU view just shows that the EU is anti-democratic. The people of the UK voted democratically to exert a right under art 50 of the EU treaty. I personally think this is wrong I personally think freedom of movement and trade is a good thing and wanted the UK to join the Euro when the time is right. But in a democracy there comes a point when you have to accept the majority decision. It is reprehensible to think that any group should be penalised for exerting a legal and democratic right.

Not the way I read it, more that the UK should not be rewarded.

It is worth remembering that for many years only the UK and Germany (not France!) were nett contributors to the EU in cash terms. Even now the UK after the rebates is the second largest nett contributor to the EU (more than France a larger country and we are often told a wealthier one). Now I accept per capita other countries contribute more. But it is absurd to pretend the UK contributed nothing to the EU.

Has anyone other than you made that claim ?

It is always worth trying to argue the other side of the case; you get insight to where your opponent is coming from.

In the UK we often hear how much better funded France's national services are. How France can protect it's culture and businesses, and agriculture. Yet for all this why does the UK end up having paid so much more for the EU than France?

One of these things is not like the other. That's like me wondering why my neighbour has a much nicer car than I do when I earn more. The reason is that he prioritised spending over other spending (or saving) items.

The U.K. is a large net contributor due to the size of our country and the strength of our economy. When net contribution per head is considered the UK is well down the list.

 

[jimbob]

But only at the cost of one of the most fundamental principles of the EU - the free movement of people.

That's like trying to keep Fred in the No-shorts-to-be-worn-at-any-time-club by allowing him to wear shorts.



Your guess would be wrong. It didn't correlate well with levels of inward migration. Cities with high levels of migration like London and Bristol voted strongly to Remain. Areas in the North East and the valleys of Wales where inward migration has been low voted to Leave.
According to various studies and analyses, the areas where Leave support was highest:

• Support the death penalty the most
• Have higher proportions of elderly people
• Have higher proportions of poor people
• Have higher proportions of poorly educated people

Whether some or all are merely correlation rather than causation is debatable (and some are inter-dependent).

IIRC, there is some evidence that attitudes to immigrants are harshest where inhabitants don't get much chance to interact with them and see them as people.

 

[Klimax]

Not the way I read it, more that the UK should not be rewarded.



Has anyone other than you made that claim ?



One of these things is not like the other. That's like me wondering why my neighbour has a much nicer car than I do when I earn more. The reason is that he prioritised spending over other spending (or saving) items.

The U.K. is a large net contributor due to the size of our country and the strength of our economy. When net contribution per head is considered the UK is well down the list.

Thanks for reply. I don't think there is much to add.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This view may be personal but if it represents an EU view just shows that the EU is anti-democratic. The people of the UK voted democratically to exert a right under art 50 of the EU treaty. I personally think this is wrong I personally think freedom of movement and trade is a good thing and wanted the UK to join the Euro when the time is right. But in a democracy there comes a point when you have to accept the majority decision. It is reprehensible to think that any group should be penalised for exerting a legal and democratic right.

Sorry but you seem to be arguing that if someone chooses to leave a club then the remaining members should still keep allowing them the benefits of the club otherwise they are being anti-democratic.

I don't think you would agree with this logic anywhere else in life.

 

[Planigale]

Sorry but you seem to be arguing that if someone chooses to leave a club then the remaining members should still keep allowing them the benefits of the club otherwise they are being anti-democratic.

I don't think you would agree with this logic anywhere else in life.

No I am saying that arguments that they should be 'punished' are wrong. Indeed I think the truly moral approach is to maximise good for all (OK my college has a stuffed body in its entrance). If the EU can improve the lives of others at no cost why not do it? If the UK can be better off without being a member of the EU why prevent that?