Andrea Leadsom for new PM?

[Goldstone1976]

**** yeah. What could be better than your lovely PM making you a sandwich and a cup of tea. The nation's coming back together, I can feel it.

We nearly got there previously. Remember that documentary about when Hugh Grant was PM? They followed him down an entire street in Wandsworth, even down to the dodgy end, as he searched for a secretary he'd got a minion to fire but had now decided he might as well shag after all. That brought the nation together too. #CurtisRules

 

[Seagull58]

No, most voters in the UK.

No, I understand that point, but it's not what you said. You said a) and b) were different, and I acknowledged that they are different, but I pointed out that if a) is true, then by definition, so is b). You disagreed and you're wrong.

Free movement is not required for free trade, but it is if a) is true. It's just a simple fact.

It doesn't matter the reason and your point b) did not mention practicality.

I agree that it would be awful for them if they refuse, but I think it would be awful for them if they accept too, as Germany and France would demand the same thing. Given the problems for them if they accept your deal, I think they'd be better calling our bluff, and asking us if we really want to commit suicide ourselves. If they offer us free trade (including services) in exchange for free movement of people (as we have now), but we get to make our own laws as we've left the EU - or nothing, I think we'd be mad not to take it.

The same applies to us, should we turn down an offer they make.

It just doesn't work like that. Norway don't get it, Switzerland don't get it, Canada don't get it. The EU is bigger than us, and the bigger unions tend to have the best bargaining power - that's just the way it is.

I don't get your position that most people in the UK want free movement of labour. One of the stated positjons of BREXIT was a points based immigration system. 17 million people voted for it. Where do you get the idea that a good proportion of them don't want it?

 

[Gwylan]

Just come off the phone after a long chat with a City lawyer. It was an interesting conversation: he takes it for granted that there will be a deal involving free movement as the City would be completely shafted without it

 

[Triggaaar]

We nearly got there previously. Remember that documentary about when Hugh Grant was PM?

Ah, Love, actually.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't get your position that most people in the UK want free movement of labour. One of the stated positjons of BREXIT was a points based immigration system. 17 million people voted for it. Where do you get the idea that a good proportion of them don't want it?

The reason that some people voted Brexit was to end the free movement of people. However, 'some' doesn't equal 17 million, there were other reasons for voting Leave.

Nearly everyone who voted remain want to keep the free trade, and would accept the free movement of people.
A good chunk of those that voted leave (including me) also want to keep the free trade, and would accept the free movement of people.

Overall, well over half of our voters would accept the free movement of people.

 

[Seagull58]

Just come off the phone after a long chat with a City lawyer. It was an interesting conversation: he takes it for granted that there will be a deal involving free movement as the City would be completely shafted without it

Why will the City be shafted without free movement? You can make it as easy or as difficult as you want to let people in. For example, in South Africa there is a critical skills list. If you skills are on that list you can get a critical skills visa. If they are not, you have to apply for a general work permit and, with 30%+ unemployed, good luck with that and don't book your flight.

 

[Seagull58]

The reason that some people voted Brexit was to end the free movement of people. However, 'some' doesn't equal 17 million, there were other reasons for voting Leave.

Nearly everyone who voted remain want to keep the free trade, and would accept the free movement of people.
A good chunk of those that voted leave (including me) also want to keep the free trade, and would accept the free movement of people.

Overall, well over half of our voters would accept the free movement of people.

You are now saying "would accept", not "want", and you have no conclusive evidence of either.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are now saying "would accept", not "want", and you have no conclusive evidence of either.

Yes, would accept the free movement of people, if it means free trade (I wasn't suggesting they want the free movement of people with nothing in return).

It's blindingly obvious that's the case. Explanation here:
http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...-vote-and-do-you-want-free-movement-of-people

 

[edna krabappel]

We nearly got there previously. Remember that documentary about when Hugh Grant was PM? They followed him down an entire street in Wandsworth, even down to the dodgy end, as he searched for a secretary he'd got a minion to fire but had now decided he might as well shag after all. That brought the nation together too. #CurtisRules

Was that the time President Trump tried to shag her while he visited Downing Street, or am I mixing up my presidents?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Was that the time President Trump tried to shag her while he visited Downing Street, or am I mixing up my presidents?

Christ, what a thought. What a precedent too.

 

[edna krabappel]

Christ, what a thought. What a precedent too.

I must have the wrong guy, as I'm sure that nice, Christian Mr Trump would never have a sexual liaison with a woman who wasn't his wife.

Incidentally, I seem to recall Donald's first wife (not sure what number he's on now) was called Ivana Trump. I can't help but imagine she must have had a heck of a time making a restaurant reservation over the phone.

 

[Gwylan]

Why will the City be shafted without free movement?.

Because in order to do business with banks in other EU countries, it needs what's called an EU bank passport - there's information about it here. I'm not a City person so I don't know the full implications (I was talking to the lawyer about something completely different) but he was adamant that banks would be royally screwed if they didn't have access to EU markets. And to get that, the UK would need to be a member of the EU or the EEA.

As I said, he didn't even think it was a discussion point; he thought it was inevitable

 

[dingodan]

Supposing we were to accept free movement of labour alongside free trade and apply 2 rules: -
1. No benefits to EU immigrants for 5 years
2. All EU immigrants go on an emergency tax code for 5 years, meaning that ALL their income is taxed at 40%

Is that free movement of labour?

We cannot accept free movement. We have never actually said no benefits for a period of time, we have actually said not full benefits. Imagine a family with children and they can't get work, we cannot, as a humane people, allow them to live on the street. Free movement means uncontrolled immigration. After the vote, I can't see how that would be accepted, and it would continue the problems which we have today with limited resources and unlimited people coming here. I really value immigration, but it absolutely has to be controlled. Uncontrolled immigration is unfair to everyone, not just the local population but to immigrants too. We just cannot have free movement. The immigration issue was never just about immigrants either, it was about public service resources, it was about depressed wages, these issues were key to the vote, you can't have free movement without effectively ignoring the refurrendum result. & I can't see people accepting that. If it were to happen, I see as a consequence the rise of UKIP or a similar party on the back of that decision, that would be the unintended consequence.

I don't want you to think I am against immigration, I am pro immigration, but we have to do it right, for the people of the UK and for the immigrants who come here also.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

We cannot accept free movement. We have never actually said no benefits for a period of time, we have actually said not full benefits. Imagine a family with children and they can't get work, we cannot, as a humane people, allow them to live on the street. Free movement means uncontrolled immigration. After the vote, I can't see how that would be accepted, and it would continue the problems which we have today with limited resources and unlimited people coming here. I really value immigration, but it absolutely has to be controlled. Uncontrolled immigration is unfair to everyone, not just the local population but to immigrants too. We just cannot have free movement. The immigration issue was never just about immigrants either, it was about public service resources, it was about depressed wages, these issues were key to the vote, you can't have free movement without effectively ignoring the refurrendum result. & I can't see people accepting that. If it were to happen, I see as a consequence the rise of UKIP or a similar party on the back of that decision, that would be the unintended consequence.

I don't want you to think I am against immigration, I am pro immigration, but we have to do it right, for the people of the UK and for the immigrants who come here also.

Nobody put a cross in the box on a ballot stating no freedom of movement with the EU.

 

[Seagull58]

Nobody put a cross in the box on a ballot stating no freedom of movement with the EU.

Here we go again.

The BREXIT campaign team made it very clear that they want to control immigration using a points based system like Australia. It was, in effect, a manifesto statement. In winning the referendum they have a mandate to get that delivered. As with general party electionmanifestos, you don't get the option of voting for each statement/commitment individually. You simply put a cross in the box indicating you are voting for their "manifesto".

 

[Seagull58]

We cannot accept free movement. We have never actually said no benefits for a period of time, we have actually said not full benefits. Imagine a family with children and they can't get work, we cannot, as a humane people, allow them to live on the street. Free movement means uncontrolled immigration. After the vote, I can't see how that would be accepted, and it would continue the problems which we have today with limited resources and unlimited people coming here. I really value immigration, but it absolutely has to be controlled. Uncontrolled immigration is unfair to everyone, not just the local population but to immigrants too. We just cannot have free movement. The immigration issue was never just about immigrants either, it was about public service resources, it was about depressed wages, these issues were key to the vote, you can't have free movement without effectively ignoring the refurrendum result. & I can't see people accepting that. If it were to happen, I see as a consequence the rise of UKIP or a similar party on the back of that decision, that would be the unintended consequence.

I don't want you to think I am against immigration, I am pro immigration, but we have to do it right, for the people of the UK and for the immigrants who come here also.

I agree with you. I was exploring whether the restrictions I listed, if applied, would still constitute free movement of labour or not.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Here we go again.

The BREXIT campaign team made it very clear that they want to control immigration using a points based system like Australia. It was, in effect, a manifesto statement. In winning the referendum they have a mandate to get that delivered. As with general party electionmanifestos, you don't get the option of voting for each statement/commitment individually. You simply put a cross in the box indicating you are voting for their "manifesto".

There is no such mandate.

There was no box to tick on the ballot paper stating a wish to end free movement.

There were no manifestos attached to the referendum. This is fundamentally different to a General Election.

 

[dingodan]

I agree with you. I was exploring whether the restrictions I listed, if applied, would still constitute free movement of labour or not.

Oh, sorry. They would, wouldn't they?

 

[dingodan]

Rerailing the thread.



http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.u...ime-minister/story-29447639-detail/story.html

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandg...rgy-minister-challenge-boris-leadership-role/

 

[Seagull58]

There is no such mandate.

There was no box to tick on the ballot paper stating a wish to end free movement.

There were no manifestos attached to the referendum. This is fundamentally different to a General Election.

Jeez. Didn't you watch any of the BREXIT campaigning? "We want to introduce a points based immigration system like the Australian model". You did not have the option of saying you are voting leave but you don't agree with controlling immigration in that way. The BREXIT campaign has won the referendum and that is their position on immigration.