May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[bkkcanuck8]

35 minutes ago, jpinx said:

All of those points reflect the position as it is today.  UK is going to be negotiating for a new position, which may or may not include some of what you have mentioned.  Going into the negotiations with a mind-set of "this is what they'll want" is defeatist at best.

This point is not even worth a word in negotiations since there is no impact.  A person coming in and looking for work has the exact same effect as someone coming in to visit Buckingham Palace.... they come, they spend money on food and accommodations - and maybe souvenirs then they leave.... i.e. a net benefit.

 

Only once someone wants to hire them does it get into points that are important in negotiations as it affects the market -- in this case it is the labour market (less vs more protectionist).... but then the UK seems to want to move to a more protectionist labour market.... whereas within the EU it is just one market ... no different than any other component of the market.  I tend to side on the EU side of things when it comes to issues like this.  People / labour migrate to where there is demand for labour and out of areas where demand is low (mobility of labour; the willingness to relocate for work is usually a good thing -- while people that refuse to move and instead end up on social services .... bad).  The dynamic made certain states within the US centers of power and influence (New York, California, etc.) and those that could not compete (Alabama, Tennessee).... just are not as influential since they are not major economic centers.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

This point is not even worth a word in negotiations since there is no impact.  A person coming in and looking for work has the exact same effect as someone coming in to visit Buckingham Palace.... they come, they spend money on food and accommodations - and maybe souvenirs then they leave.... i.e. a net benefit.

 

Only once someone wants to hire them does it get into points that are important in negotiations as it affects the market -- in this case it is the labour market (less vs more protectionist).... but then the UK seems to want to move to a more protectionist labour market.... whereas within the EU it is just one market ... no different than any other component of the market.  I tend to side on the EU side of things when it comes to issues like this.  People / labour migrate to where there is demand for labour and out of areas where demand is low (mobility of labour; the willingness to relocate for work is usually a good thing -- while people that refuse to move and instead end up on social services .... bad).  The dynamic made certain states within the US centers of power and influence (New York, California, etc.) and those that could not compete (Alabama, Tennessee).... just are not as influential since they are not major economic centers.

Your argument is well-made, and reflects the UK's own inability to get it's own workforce back to work.  The counter to that is the willingness of incoming labour to accept much lower wages.  This allows incoming workers onto the "ladder" of job, tax, benefits, family arrival, etc which is the cause of a vast amount of resentment within UK, and to some extent translated into a Brexit vote.

[bkkcanuck8]

57 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The counter to that is the willingness of incoming labour to accept much lower wages.  This allows incoming workers onto the "ladder" of job, tax, benefits, family arrival, etc which is the cause of a vast amount of resentment within UK, and to some extent translated into a Brexit vote.

Part of the issue (and with the "Make America Great Again" crowd) generally speaking is that people want to go back in time to basically an unrealistic age.   Part of the reason why the standard of living and the economy was "so great" is that the economies where at the peak of a bubble.  The economies were made "better" in comparison because a higher percentage of the world was much worse off than now development-wise due to many different factors.  When the rest of the world started to come up economically in comparison the most developed countries by comparison came down.  It is the same dynamic in Thailand where because the a larger percentage of people lack the competitive skills that even middle income people can live a rather inflated standard of living.  Here middle income people can hire maids because the cost of this differential in the economy.  As the economy develops - many who were in the past able to afford their own maid will not be able to.  In the west because it is more developed -- no middle class person generally speaking could really hire a full time maid.  The resentment is that people think that the countries have fallen so far from their peak, and in reality what has happened is that many more recently developed / developing countries have risen and are more competitive.  As long as the economy is well managed, which in many cases means that government gets out of the way and gets their foot off the throats, the labour market itself will rebalance.  New people entering the labour force tend to underbid the market to get in and once they are in they start building a sense of entitlement and eventually are not that much different than the "old guard".  It is scary when you have to compete and possibly lose, but then a protectionist labour itself tends to raise things in the short term but long term everyone loses (think US auto workers on assembly lines making 6 digit salaries.... yet the industry as a whole became uncompetitive and the US lost market).

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Part of the issue (and with the "Make America Great Again" crowd) generally speaking is that people want to go back in time to basically an unrealistic age.   Part of the reason why the standard of living and the economy was "so great" is that the economies where at the peak of a bubble.  The economies were made "better" in comparison because a higher percentage of the world was much worse off than now development-wise due to many different factors.  When the rest of the world started to come up economically in comparison the most developed countries by comparison came down.  It is the same dynamic in Thailand where because the a larger percentage of people lack the competitive skills that even middle income people can live a rather inflated standard of living.  Here middle income people can hire maids because the cost of this differential in the economy.  As the economy develops - many who were in the past able to afford their own maid will not be able to.  In the west because it is more developed -- no middle class person generally speaking could really hire a full time maid.  The resentment is that people think that the countries have fallen so far from their peak, and in reality what has happened is that many more recently developed / developing countries have risen and are more competitive.  As long as the economy is well managed, which in many cases means that government gets out of the way and gets their foot off the throats, the labour market itself will rebalance.  New people entering the labour force tend to underbid the market to get in and once they are in they start building a sense of entitlement and eventually are not that much different than the "old guard".  It is scary when you have to compete and possibly lose, but then a protectionist labour itself tends to raise things in the short term but long term everyone loses (think US auto workers on assembly lines making 6 digit salaries.... yet the industry as a whole became uncompetitive and the US lost market).

You are right -- Joe Public generally sees the economy in terms of the differential between the social strata, and indeed Thailand is going through a stage of that right now.  The thing about the EU is that the joining countries are almost invariably "poor", so any job at minimum wage in Germany/UK/etc is a big step up for those workers able to mobilise and take advantage.  Employers will invariably go for the cheaper labour, and the net result is a lot of grumpy UK workers having to accept minimum wages and conditions, or out of work.  As a passing point - - the cost of benefits to the UK workforce now out-of-work is not mentioned much -- is it ?  

The newer EU member countries feed off the older, well-established ones with disparate effects.  Germany has a seriously aging population, but still has a high demand for manual labour, so they are very happy to take in and employ the newly mobile workforce who will now pay German taxes and thereby the German pensioners. 

It's probably fair to say that the UK government has never been whole-heartedly behind their membership of the EU.  There has always been a lot of moaning and bitching about so many things that the rest of the EU is skeptical of UK - even on a good day.   The EU loved the UK contributions, but that was the only reason the EU put up with the grumbling.  Now that Brexit is a reality, the true colours of the various factions across Europe are showing.  Long established members are sad but resigned, newer members are demanding the hardest exit possible because they recognise the loss of revenue, and therefore the reduced handouts.

UK probably should not close the door on the movement of labour, but it should run a similar system to what was in place many years ago, where a UK employer had to demonstrate the shortage of UK labour for his requirements before he was allowed to take on any non-UK worker. From personal experience it's fair to say that it was not unduly onerous and did force employers to "buy british" where possible.  It also made the JobShop a lot more aware and proactive.

Negotiations can include such a system without a "cap" on the numbers - which seems to be the stumbling block.  Switzerland is currently floating another version the labour movement issue, so it will be interesting to see how that goes down in Brussels.

 

 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

30 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The thing about the EU is that the joining countries are almost invariably "poor", so any job at minimum wage in Germany/UK/etc is a big step up for those workers able to mobilise and take advantage.  Employers will invariably go for the cheaper labour, and the net result is a lot of grumpy UK workers having to accept minimum wages and conditions, or out of work.  As a passing point - - the cost of benefits to the UK workforce now out-of-work is not mentioned much -- is it ?

 

 

 

An modern example of the dynamic where by the labour market rebalances -- is Germany.  East Germany collapsed, the wall came down and West Germany had similar issues and resentment to a certain extent.  I believe the population balance between the rich and poor Germanys was either 3:1 or 4:1 and there was a lot of dislocation....  A similar thing is happening with Eastern European (poor) countries coming in to the EU.... at the beginning dislocation etc. but if allowed to run the course the same rebalancing will occur and the EU will be the better for it.

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

An modern example of the dynamic where by the labour market rebalances -- is Germany.  East Germany collapsed, the wall came down and West Germany had similar issues and resentment to a certain extent.  I believe the population balance between the rich and poor Germanys was either 3:1 or 4:1 and there was a lot of dislocation....  A similar thing is happening with Eastern European (poor) countries coming in to the EU.... at the beginning dislocation etc. but if allowed to run the course the same rebalancing will occur and the EU will be the better for it.

Nice analogy, but it overlooks the "national interest" factor which has always played a big part in Germany's collective conscience.  The EU has no such over-arching national interest, so the "rebalancing" is not so sure, and not likely to be so even.  Has to be said that I have good friends from both "sides" of Germany and there is still a deep undercurrent of uncertainty of the wisdom of re-unification.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

You are right -- Joe Public generally sees the economy in terms of the differential between the social strata, and indeed Thailand is going through a stage of that right now.  The thing about the EU is that the joining countries are almost invariably "poor", so any job at minimum wage in Germany/UK/etc is a big step up for those workers able to mobilise and take advantage.  Employers will invariably go for the cheaper labour, and the net result is a lot of grumpy UK workers having to accept minimum wages and conditions, or out of work.  As a passing point - - the cost of benefits to the UK workforce now out-of-work is not mentioned much -- is it ?  

The newer EU member countries feed off the older, well-established ones with disparate effects.  Germany has a seriously aging population, but still has a high demand for manual labour, so they are very happy to take in and employ the newly mobile workforce who will now pay German taxes and thereby the German pensioners. 

It's probably fair to say that the UK government has never been whole-heartedly behind their membership of the EU.  There has always been a lot of moaning and bitching about so many things that the rest of the EU is skeptical of UK - even on a good day.   The EU loved the UK contributions, but that was the only reason the EU put up with the grumbling.  Now that Brexit is a reality, the true colours of the various factions across Europe are showing.  Long established members are sad but resigned, newer members are demanding the hardest exit possible because they recognise the loss of revenue, and therefore the reduced handouts.

UK probably should not close the door on the movement of labour, but it should run a similar system to what was in place many years ago, where a UK employer had to demonstrate the shortage of UK labour for his requirements before he was allowed to take on any non-UK worker. From personal experience it's fair to say that it was not unduly onerous and did force employers to "buy british" where possible.  It also made the JobShop a lot more aware and proactive.

Negotiations can include such a system without a "cap" on the numbers - which seems to be the stumbling block.  Switzerland is currently floating another version the labour movement issue, so it will be interesting to see how that goes down in Brussels.

 

 

 

Re. the emboldened part, I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that companies shouldn't be able to employ skilled, well paid foreign workers in occupations where there is a shortage?

 

As you say, the system in place many years ago worked v well.  Employers hired a skilled, foreign employee and provided evidence as to why the employee should be allowed the position.

[7by7]

21 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

You somewhat miss the point (but that's not quite a crime). My reference is not to the issue as such (which you trawled for a reference back in July...about 4+ months ago) it is rather to the meeting yesterday where May's speech was an emphasis on an early deal re the matter at hand (see FT today Friday). My contribution was in response to the nonsensical guff from some hard Brexiteers re hiding of pokers hand, not to mention piffle about playing chess. The only thing hidden behind the government's hands is an empty space. When they have got something to say (such as the above) they are quite prepared to float it. Please do keep up.

 

The post Brexit status of British citizens already living in the EU and EU citizens already living in the UK is nothing new, was not, as you were originally trying to imply, first raised at that particular meeting.

 

It is a concrete issue which was raised some time ago, and May stated her governments position at that time. There is no flexibility; we will guarantee the rights of EEA citizens already living in the UK if you do the same for British citizens already living in the other EEA states. No negotiating required, it is a straightforward, yes/no issue. The other 27 accept it or they don't.

 

Sorry that such a simple matter is confusing you so much.

 

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the emboldened part, I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that companies shouldn't be able to employ skilled, well paid foreign workers in occupations where there is a shortage?

 

As you say, the system in place many years ago worked v well.  Employers hired a skilled, foreign employee and provided evidence as to why the employee should be allowed the position.

 

Which is the situation in the UK as far as non EEA nationals are concerned; they must, among other requirements, be sponsored by a UKVI approved employer in the UK. See Tier 2 (General) visa

 

The main difference for EEA nationals being that they can come to the UK to look for work and if they find it within three months they can stay. Just as British jobseekers can, and do, in other EEA states.

 

What the post Brexit situation will be for EEA nationals is one of the things which will need to be negotiated and agreed.

[jpinx]

There might be some interest amongst posters to take a look at the way the EU are dealing with the Ukraine.  To say there is no chance of UK doing a deal with the EU is very much at odds with the actions of Brussels with other arrangements for other countries.

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The post Brexit status of British citizens already living in the EU and EU citizens already living in the UK is nothing new, was not, as you were originally trying to imply, first raised at that particular meeting.

 

It is a concrete issue which was raised some time ago, and May stated her governments position at that time. There is no flexibility; we will guarantee the rights of EEA citizens already living in the UK if you do the same for British citizens already living in the other EEA states. No negotiating required, it is a straightforward, yes/no issue. The other 27 accept it or they don't.

 

Sorry that such a simple matter is confusing you so much.

 

 

 

The EU could offer the same for EU countries but not for EEA countries, thats way beyond what the EU can do.

 

[melvinmelvin]

7 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

It's probably fair to say that the UK government has never been whole-heartedly behind their membership of the EU.  There has always been a lot of moaning and bitching about so many things that the rest of the EU is skeptical of UK - even on a good day.   The EU loved the UK contributions, but that was the only reason the EU put up with the grumbling.  Now that Brexit is a reality, the true colours of the various factions across Europe are showing.  Long established members are sad but resigned, newer members are demanding the hardest exit possible because they recognise the loss of revenue, and therefore the reduced handouts.

 

 

 

 

 

man, sorry I cut/paste your post, but with what you say above I think you are pretty much spot on,

the UK has never really been into it

 

(I'll refrain from saying why at this stage but the reasons behind will make the Brexit negos very very challenging)

 

[7by7]

59 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

The EU could offer the same (continuation of the treaty rights of British citizens already living in the EEA post Brexit) for EU countries but not for EEA countries, thats way beyond what the EU can do.

 

 

All EU members are also members of the EEA.

 

The freedom of movement directive is an EU directive; passed, amended and administered by the EU (parliament, council of ministers and/or commission as appropriate) and, where necessary, it's judicial arm, the ECJ.

 

Non EU members have to accept it and amendments to it as a condition of EEA membership.

 

Previous changes to the directive, such as the Surinder Singh and Zambrano rulings, made by the ECJ have applied to the EEA countries who are not also members of the EU as well as those who are.

 

Therefore any post Brexit agreement between the UK and the EU regarding the directive will apply equally to all EEA members; unless radical changes are made to the EEA Agreement in order to block it.

 

But why would anyone want to do that? It is as much in the other 30 EEA members' interests that their nationals living in the UK have their treaty rights protected post Brexit as it is in ours to ensure the same for British nationals living in the other 30.

 

This is a non issue and I can't understand why the EU have not simply responded to the quid pro quo position first stated by May last July.

[melvinmelvin]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

All EU members are also members of the EEA.

 

The freedom of movement directive is an EU directive; passed, amended and administered by the EU (parliament, council of ministers and/or commission as appropriate) and, where necessary, it's judicial arm, the ECJ.

 

Non EU members have to accept it and amendments to it as a condition of EEA membership.

 

Previous changes to the directive, such as the Surinder Singh and Zambrano rulings, made by the ECJ have applied to the EEA countries who are not also members of the EU as well as those who are.

 

Therefore any post Brexit agreement between the UK and the EU regarding the directive will apply equally to all EEA members; unless radical changes are made to the EEA Agreement in order to block it.

 

But why would anyone want to do that? It is as much in the other 30 EEA members' interests that their nationals living in the UK have their treaty rights protected post Brexit as it is in ours to ensure the same for British nationals living in the other 30.

 

This is a non issue and I can't understand why the EU have not simply responded to the quid pro quo position first stated by May last July.

 

well, the directive is probably a EC directive, not a EU directive

 

mechanisms for EFTA members blocking directives are already integral parts of the EEA treaty, have been there from the very start

 

but as you say;

why would anyone want to do that?

 

people, including politicians and red-tapers, get weird ideas and make things trickier than necessary when

it comes to negotiations

 

[SheungWan]

On 12/16/2016 at 9:37 AM, sandyf said:

Whether you see the indirect relationship or not is immaterial. The increase in public borrowing due to brexit has put a block on the governments ability to increase funding to essential services.

Last night I watched Question time from Maidenhead and members of the audience were suggesting increases in income tax and corporation tax to help ease the pressure on the NHS and social care.

 

 

There's always somebody with a pet solution on Question Time.

Edited December 18, 2016 by SheungWan

[7by7]

8 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

well, the directive is probably a EC directive, not a EU directive

 

Errr, as the EC (European Commission) is the executive body of the EU, same thing.

 

Of course, just as, for example, the British civil service proposes and drafts legislation for the British government, the commission does the same for the EU. But the civil service cannot make law, and neither can the commission.

 

To become EU law, proposals have to be agreed by the European Parliament and/or the Council of Ministers.

 

In this case; both: EU freedom of movement and residence

Quote

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

But we're splitting hairs.

 

8 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

mechanisms for EFTA members blocking directives are already integral parts of the EEA treaty, have been there from the very start

 

If you say so, I can't be bothered to search through the agreement.

 

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

[sandyf]

8 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

There's always somebody with a pet solution on Question Time.

Yes, it was Nigel Farage that kicked the ball, more pet solutions for brexit than a veterinary clinic.

[SheungWan]

11 hours ago, sandyf said:

Yes, it was Nigel Farage that kicked the ball, more pet solutions for brexit than a veterinary clinic.

 

Clearly Theresa May made an awful error in refusing to appoint Nigel as Ambassador to the United States.

Edited December 19, 2016 by SheungWan

[dick dasterdly]

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Errr, as the EC (European Commission) is the executive body of the EU, same thing.

 

Of course, just as, for example, the British civil service proposes and drafts legislation for the British government, the commission does the same for the EU. But the civil service cannot make law, and neither can the commission.

 

To become EU law, proposals have to be agreed by the European Parliament and/or the Council of Ministers.

 

In this case; both: EU freedom of movement and residence

But we're splitting hairs.

 

 

If you say so, I can't be bothered to search through the agreement.

 

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

Except those countries don't have the same 'clout'.

 

But I agree that the EU will find itself in an even more difficult situation if it agrees better terms for the UK than those in other countries.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 10:28 AM, 7by7 said:

<snip>

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

Except those countries don't have the same 'clout'.

 

No clout at all, really, as they have no representation in the European parliament nor the Council of Ministers!

[jpinx]

interesting quote from behind the Economist paywall....

 

"..............

 

 

Bagehot
Theresa May and the breaking of Boris Johnson

The prime minister is transforming the role of the cabinet


EVERYTHING in politics comes back to Machiavelli in the end. That much Friedrich Schiller understood. From the 18th century dramatist’s pen flowed imperfect, squishily human characters who have read “The Prince” and know that to exert their will in the world they must become iron. Take “Mary Stuart”, his play about the Queen of Scots, now on at the Almeida Theatre in London. Elizabeth I is loth to sign her cousin and rival’s death warrant until, in a sylvan encounter, Mary fails to show due humility. Schiller depicts a side of Gloriana that England opts to forget: even dear Old Bess had to be cynical, sly and brutal to keep power in her society. She had to break people.

Bagehot would not reach for the comparison if Theresa May did not do so herself. The prime minister has named Elizabeth the historical figure with whom she most identifies: “She stood up for Britain…had a very clear vision about what she wanted to do.” And there is something there: images of the munificent, nation-uniting leader (the prime minister’s party is close to its highest poll numbers in decades) up against perfidious continentals mingle awkwardly with the brutality she patently feels she has to mete out to stay on top.
 

Consider Boris Johnson. The foreign secretary is no Queen of Scots. Mrs May would lose little sleep over finishing him off (politically, at least). Yet like Schiller’s Elizabeth, she is intensely suspicious of prospective rivals, especially ones who do not defer to her authority and threaten to upset her plans. Mr Johnson ticks those boxes: routinely veering off message, issuing freelance policy announcements and flashing Eurosceptic ankle at Tory MPs who are destined to be disappointed by Mrs May’s efforts in Brussels next year.  

The prime minister has responded with jaw-dropping ferocity. When the man she made foreign secretary only five months ago (correctly) accused Saudi Arabia of conducting proxy wars in the Middle East he was publicly disowned: the comments were “not the government’s position”. This, after a torrent of prime ministerial mockery: “I seem to remember the last time he did a deal with the Germans he came back with three nearly new water cannon,” she tweaked in the summer, when the two were rivals for the top job; in her October conference speech she feigned shock that he had stayed “on message for a full four days”; in Parliament on December 14th she allowed that her acronym for him was <deleted> (“Fine Foreign Secretary”, she explained, though the hint was something else). Most striking was a joke last month in which—referring to an account of Michael Heseltine, a former deputy prime minister, strangling his mother’s dog—she looked her foreign secretary in the eye and boomed: “Boris, the dog was put down...when its master decided it wasn’t needed any more.”

Notwithstanding a dry private wit, Mrs May is not the sort who takes humour lightly. Her mockery of Mr Johnson serves a purpose: control. This speaks to her statecraft, which differs substantially from that of David Cameron. Her predecessor ran what might be described as a liberal dictatorship. The major decisions were reached in a tight cabal containing the prime minister, George Osborne and their advisers. The cabinet made relatively few big, meaningful decisions. Yet day to day, individual ministers were mostly free to run their fiefs as they saw fit: Michael Gove to enact his education revolution, Iain Duncan Smith to try (and broadly fail) to overhaul the welfare system, Mrs May to run the Home Office as a sort of private fortress.

Under her premiership things could hardly be more different. The cabinet makes real decisions. Its subcommittees plunge into the details. Ministers are expected to know each other’s patches. To rub it all in, the prime minister gave them a bound collection of past cabinet transcripts for Christmas: the cabinet is back, is the message. Individually, however, ministers are weak. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has received the “not speaking for the government” treatment. Justine Greening, the education secretary, must bang the drum for new grammar schools despite her own doubts. Philip Hammond, though friendly with Mrs May and outspoken on Brexit, eschews the imperial ostentations of most of his recent predecessors. The prime minister has appointed her own economic adviser. She has also ordered the seizure of the phone and e-mail records of ministers suspected of leaking news to the press. The braver in their midst, and top civil servants, whisper of the U-turns and bottlenecks caused by the requirement that policies go through Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, Mrs May’s granitic chiefs of staff, and by the verbal invigilations the prime minister puts them through before approving things.

Full throttle

This Sturm und Drang extends beyond the cabinet. Mrs May did not just dismiss Mr Osborne and Mr Gove when she took office; she gave each a dressing down in the process. Gavin Williamson, her parliamentary enforcer, lets a tarantula named Cronus (after the castrator of Greek myth) scuttle about his desk during meetings—supposedly to intimidate MPs. When Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary, made a snippy remark about a pair of leather trousers worn by the prime minister, Downing Street blew a gasket: “Don’t bring that woman to No 10 again,” stormed a text from Ms Hill to another former minister.

It pays to mark the limits of what one might call Mrs May’s autocratic democracy. Mr Timothy is not, as some accounts put it, a “Rasputin”. Ms Hill is neither truly “terrifying” nor “paranoid”. And the prime minister did not “threaten to exterminate” Mr Johnson. Yet there is something of Elizabeth about Britain’s still new and little-understood prime minister. She is severe and pugilistic, more so than her predecessor. Done right—as Schiller implied in “Mary Stuart”—this mastery of the will is the essence of power. Done wrong, Machiavelli warned, it leads to enemies, resentment and downfall. It’s all in the execution..............."

 

[Loeilad]

On 18/12/2016 at 5:28 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Errr, as the EC (European Commission) is the executive body of the EU, same thing.

 

Of course, just as, for example, the British civil service proposes and drafts legislation for the British government, the commission does the same for the EU. But the civil service cannot make law, and neither can the commission.

 

To become EU law, proposals have to be agreed by the European Parliament and/or the Council of Ministers.

 

In this case; both: EU freedom of movement and residence

But we're splitting hairs.

 

 

If you say so, I can't be bothered to search through the agreement.

 

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

I think not..if interests like oil and fishing overlap there will be problems 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 10:28 AM, 7by7 said:

However, I think it's safe to say that whatever agreement the UK and EU come to on this issue will be accepted by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland as well.

I think not..if interests like oil and fishing overlap there will be problems 

 

I was talking about one particular issue; whether or not the rights of EEA citizens already living in the UK and British citizens already living in other EEA states will be maintained after Brexit.

[Loeilad]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I was talking about one particular issue; whether or not the rights of EEA citizens already living in the UK and British citizens already living in other EEA states will be maintained after Brexit.

"Be careful what you wish for! Switzerland and Norway are both small countries with specialised ‘niche’ economies: Switzerland with its often-criticised banking system, and Norway with its massive oil reserves. 

But their industries have to follow EU rules as that’s their main market. As non-members, they have no say over the adoption of those EU rules. They cannot defend their interests. They have, effectively, lost sovereignty through their isolation — as the Norwegian government itself admits."

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, Loeilad said:

"Be careful what you wish for! Switzerland and Norway are both small countries with specialised ‘niche’ economies: Switzerland with its often-criticised banking system, and Norway with its massive oil reserves. 

But their industries have to follow EU rules as that’s their main market. As non-members, they have no say over the adoption of those EU rules. They cannot defend their interests. They have, effectively, lost sovereignty through their isolation — as the Norwegian government itself admits."

Quite.

Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, has said that Britons wishing to leave the European Union next week “won’t like” life on the outskirts of the 28-member state bloc.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-leave-european-union-norway-prime-minister-erna-solberg-warning-a7084926.html

[7by7]

11 hours ago, Loeilad said:

"Be careful what you wish for!

 

What I wished, and voted, for was to remain in the EU.

 

11 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Switzerland and Norway are both small countries with specialised ‘niche’ economies: Switzerland with its often-criticised banking system, and Norway with its massive oil reserves. 

But their industries have to follow EU rules as that’s their main market. As non-members, they have no say over the adoption of those EU rules. They cannot defend their interests. They have, effectively, lost sovereignty through their isolation — as the Norwegian government itself admits."

 

The same for the other EEA states as well.

 

What of the UK post Brexit?

 

If we do a deal similar to that of the non EU EEA states we will be subject to EU rules and also have to contribute to the EU budget; without having any say over those rules or how the money is spent.

 

I doubt very much that the remaining 27 EU members would accept a deal for the UK better than that.

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What I wished, and voted, for was to remain in the EU.

 

 

The same for the other EEA states as well.

 

What of the UK post Brexit?

 

If we do a deal similar to that of the non EU EEA states we will be subject to EU rules and also have to contribute to the EU budget; without having any say over those rules or how the money is spent.

 

I doubt very much that the remaining 27 EU members would accept a deal for the UK better than that.

.... and there we have the nub of it,  but the reality is that the UK is a much bigger deal for the EU then the other countries put together.   TM will be winding up a series of cogent and persuasive arguments about why the UK should be given a better deal, and if Germany, France and Netherlands agree, they rest of the EU's minion countries will do what they're told because they're all net takers -- not givers.

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What I wished, and voted, for was to remain in the EU.

 

 

The same for the other EEA states as well.

 

What of the UK post Brexit?

 

If we do a deal similar to that of the non EU EEA states we will be subject to EU rules and also have to contribute to the EU budget; without having any say over those rules or how the money is spent.

 

I doubt very much that the remaining 27 EU members would accept a deal for the UK better than that.

Similarly, I doubt those who voted for bexit will accept a deal that leaves the UK subject to all EU rules and still paying a huge amount -whilst having no say.

 

Will the politicians find a way around this conundrum?

[Grouse]

On 19/12/2016 at 11:31 AM, jpinx said:

interesting quote from behind the Economist paywall....

 

"..............

 

 

Bagehot
Theresa May and the breaking of Boris Johnson

The prime minister is transforming the role of the cabinet


EVERYTHING in politics comes back to Machiavelli in the end. That much Friedrich Schiller understood. From the 18th century dramatist’s pen flowed imperfect, squishily human characters who have read “The Prince” and know that to exert their will in the world they must become iron. Take “Mary Stuart”, his play about the Queen of Scots, now on at the Almeida Theatre in London. Elizabeth I is loth to sign her cousin and rival’s death warrant until, in a sylvan encounter, Mary fails to show due humility. Schiller depicts a side of Gloriana that England opts to forget: even dear Old Bess had to be cynical, sly and brutal to keep power in her society. She had to break people.

Bagehot would not reach for the comparison if Theresa May did not do so herself. The prime minister has named Elizabeth the historical figure with whom she most identifies: “She stood up for Britain…had a very clear vision about what she wanted to do.” And there is something there: images of the munificent, nation-uniting leader (the prime minister’s party is close to its highest poll numbers in decades) up against perfidious continentals mingle awkwardly with the brutality she patently feels she has to mete out to stay on top.
 

Consider Boris Johnson. The foreign secretary is no Queen of Scots. Mrs May would lose little sleep over finishing him off (politically, at least). Yet like Schiller’s Elizabeth, she is intensely suspicious of prospective rivals, especially ones who do not defer to her authority and threaten to upset her plans. Mr Johnson ticks those boxes: routinely veering off message, issuing freelance policy announcements and flashing Eurosceptic ankle at Tory MPs who are destined to be disappointed by Mrs May’s efforts in Brussels next year.  

The prime minister has responded with jaw-dropping ferocity. When the man she made foreign secretary only five months ago (correctly) accused Saudi Arabia of conducting proxy wars in the Middle East he was publicly disowned: the comments were “not the government’s position”. This, after a torrent of prime ministerial mockery: “I seem to remember the last time he did a deal with the Germans he came back with three nearly new water cannon,” she tweaked in the summer, when the two were rivals for the top job; in her October conference speech she feigned shock that he had stayed “on message for a full four days”; in Parliament on December 14th she allowed that her acronym for him was <deleted> (“Fine Foreign Secretary”, she explained, though the hint was something else). Most striking was a joke last month in which—referring to an account of Michael Heseltine, a former deputy prime minister, strangling his mother’s dog—she looked her foreign secretary in the eye and boomed: “Boris, the dog was put down...when its master decided it wasn’t needed any more.”

Notwithstanding a dry private wit, Mrs May is not the sort who takes humour lightly. Her mockery of Mr Johnson serves a purpose: control. This speaks to her statecraft, which differs substantially from that of David Cameron. Her predecessor ran what might be described as a liberal dictatorship. The major decisions were reached in a tight cabal containing the prime minister, George Osborne and their advisers. The cabinet made relatively few big, meaningful decisions. Yet day to day, individual ministers were mostly free to run their fiefs as they saw fit: Michael Gove to enact his education revolution, Iain Duncan Smith to try (and broadly fail) to overhaul the welfare system, Mrs May to run the Home Office as a sort of private fortress.

Under her premiership things could hardly be more different. The cabinet makes real decisions. Its subcommittees plunge into the details. Ministers are expected to know each other’s patches. To rub it all in, the prime minister gave them a bound collection of past cabinet transcripts for Christmas: the cabinet is back, is the message. Individually, however, ministers are weak. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has received the “not speaking for the government” treatment. Justine Greening, the education secretary, must bang the drum for new grammar schools despite her own doubts. Philip Hammond, though friendly with Mrs May and outspoken on Brexit, eschews the imperial ostentations of most of his recent predecessors. The prime minister has appointed her own economic adviser. She has also ordered the seizure of the phone and e-mail records of ministers suspected of leaking news to the press. The braver in their midst, and top civil servants, whisper of the U-turns and bottlenecks caused by the requirement that policies go through Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, Mrs May’s granitic chiefs of staff, and by the verbal invigilations the prime minister puts them through before approving things.

Full throttle

This Sturm und Drang extends beyond the cabinet. Mrs May did not just dismiss Mr Osborne and Mr Gove when she took office; she gave each a dressing down in the process. Gavin Williamson, her parliamentary enforcer, lets a tarantula named Cronus (after the castrator of Greek myth) scuttle about his desk during meetings—supposedly to intimidate MPs. When Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary, made a snippy remark about a pair of leather trousers worn by the prime minister, Downing Street blew a gasket: “Don’t bring that woman to No 10 again,” stormed a text from Ms Hill to another former minister.

It pays to mark the limits of what one might call Mrs May’s autocratic democracy. Mr Timothy is not, as some accounts put it, a “Rasputin”. Ms Hill is neither truly “terrifying” nor “paranoid”. And the prime minister did not “threaten to exterminate” Mr Johnson. Yet there is something of Elizabeth about Britain’s still new and little-understood prime minister. She is severe and pugilistic, more so than her predecessor. Done right—as Schiller implied in “Mary Stuart”—this mastery of the will is the essence of power. Done wrong, Machiavelli warned, it leads to enemies, resentment and downfall. It’s all in the execution..............."

 

 

I guess fair use does not apply to you? I thought quoting 3 lines was the limit? Baghot is always good though ?

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I guess fair use does not apply to you? I thought quoting 3 lines was the limit? Baghot is always good though ?

Sorry for that, but being behind a paywall and being very relevant, I pushed my luck