| The Comments |
“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.
“If we were not in Europe, I think there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say, do they need to develop a mainland Europe presence rather than a UK presence? So I think there are definite benefits for us in economic terms.”
Theresa May, Home Secretary 26th May 2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
She probably did say all of this after all she was one who wanted to stay in, at the time that was her thoughts, and right, and still is, the UK voted to get out, Cameron did a runner even (When the going gets tough...The tough get going...As he did) though he was also one who wanted to stay in. Mrs May got the job so now she is at least trying to do what the voters wanted and make the UK great again without hinderance from the EU.
What she said in the past has no bearing on what she is trying to do now, even if some think her heart is not in the job.
2
Like
|
Perhaps it is similar to those who originally considered and were hopeful that reform of the EU was possible only to realise that the system and intransigence of the EU bureaucrats was stacked against them.....
1
Like
|
Mrs. May made that statement on 26th May. That was after the negotiations Cameron did with the EU and well into the campaign. Clearly she thinks the same as a very large section of the UK parliamentary MP's. i.e. remaining in the EU is far and away better for the British economy.
However as Prime Minister she feels it's her duty to carry out the majority wishes of the British voters who have decided to put the nation’s wealth second to the prevention of immigration.
I cannot argue against that on procedural grounds, except parliament which is sovereign must have the final say or the voters should again on a constituency basis in a general election. That is the constitutional arrangements Britain has enjoyed for centuries.
The issue is far too important for the future of Britain to ignore that fact.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
4
Like
|
Back in June 22nd (after Mrs Mays comment) the Independent newspaper reported the following
Mr Cameron has said repeatedly this week that Britain could continue the process of reforming the EU, particularly on the issue of freedom of movement, if we remain a member.
But despite Mr Juncker’s comments apparently focusing on what would happen in the event of a Leave vote, Boris Johnson claimed that the EC President had made clear that any attempt to change immigration rules from within would be a “sham, snare and delusion”. “If we stay in, there is no prospect of any further change,” Mr Johnson said. “This is it, folks. We have been told from the horse's mouth that any hope of further change is absolute illusion.”
It appears therefore that any such ongoing suggestions by Cameron at that time were in effect unattainable.....
The subsequent impact and threat to our social structure, proliferation of intolerance etc without further flexibility to regain control and have time to adequately respond to these swift and growing demands, as has already been discussed at length in this thread could not, nor should be overlooked or denied.
Food for thought for those Parliamentarians who fail to recognise that the EU, when presented with these uncomfortable realities is STILL unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances.
There comes a point where realism has to prevail and perhaps this has played some part in the PM's rational thinking.
This message was last edited by ads on 26/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Micky, you say:
I cannot argue against that on procedural grounds, except parliament which is sovereign must have the final say or the voters should again on a constituency basis in a general election. That is the constitutional arrangements Britain has enjoyed for centuries.
How would a general election work regarding if we leave the EU or stay, what criteria we use and how to leave the EU if we do?
We would usually Vote Conservative, Labour , UKIP etc, would one of these parties have to have a manifesto that clearly states what we would be negotiating on to leave the EU.
What if no party wanted to put forward a manifesto based on leaving the EU, what if all parties put forward a manifesto on leaving the EU?
Normally we choose a party based on what we feel is right for us, using the manifesto pledges as our logic for choosing that party, although I know there are people who are staunch supporters of one party or another and will vote for them come what may.
I don't feel we could elect or re-elect a government based on if they would stay or leave the EU, completely ignoring all other elements of their manifesto.
This is probably why we had a referendum so that the issue of if we should stay or leave was treated as a seperate issue. The country was asked to vote to stay in or leave the EU and by now we all know what the majority of voters said.
The majority of the voters gave their blessing to leave the EU and no amount of wriggling will change this, it will happen so we have to make the best of it and try not to turn into gumpy old men.
This message was last edited by BigAl2015 on 26/10/2016.
0
Like
|
Mrs. May made that statement on 26th May. That was after the negotiations Cameron did with the EU and well into the campaign. Clearly she thinks the same as a very large section of the UK parliamentary MP's. i.e. remaining in the EU is far and away better for the British economy.
However as Prime Minister she feels it's her duty to carry out the majority wishes of the British voters who have decided to put the nation’s wealth second to the prevention of immigration.
I cannot argue against that on procedural grounds, except parliament which is sovereign must have the final say or the voters should again on a constituency basis in a general election. That is the constitutional arrangements Britain has enjoyed for centuries.
The issue is far too important for the future of Britain to ignore that fact.
If Cameron had done any good worthwhile meaningful negotiations he would have been shouting about it from the roof tops, as it was we hardly heard a thing that made a decent change for us being in the EU.
I don't know of that many, fact is hardly any, who voted out in the hope that immigration would stop overnight, this would seem the last thing on voters minds. The EU making a complete balls up with everything it touched, and messing up the UK was the main reason for the out vote.
Why people keep on about the immigration issue is most likely because as it's not changed much, 'Yet' they like to use this to show we made a mistake, if thats not so they sure do keep on about, also all early days yet.
The fact is which anyone who wanted to stay in, wont, still wont, cant see, and will not admit to, is the EU being run like a very bad circus which still has performing animals.
1
Like
|
I feel quite SORRY for the french in VILLAGES where 1000s of immigrants will be eventually let loose into the GENERAL populous ONE FRENCH gentlemen said on the NEWS he fears for the young WOMEN as 1000s of MALE refugees are running around on HEAT
FRANCE is fast becoming a GHETTO for all the waifs and strays of EUROPE
THE UK needed to stop this mass movement over our BORDERS and the EU will look at our EXAMPLE in years to come and say you KNOW what they were RIGHT
Love Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
4
Like
|
Al wrote:
What if no party wanted to put forward a manifesto based on leaving the EU, what if all parties put forward a manifesto on leaving the EU?
The Liberal Democrats have already said they would fight the next election on remaining in the EU. They managed to increase their majority by some 30% in Cameron’s old seat of Witney on that issue only last week. Witney voted 70% to remain in the referendum.
In the coming by- election in Richmond Park the Lib Dems will campaign on remaining not the airport runway issue. If the Labour Party sees votes in it they will follow suit and may do deals not to oppose the Liberals in seats they can win. Who knows? ‘It’s not over until the fat lady sings’.
Baz.
Immigration is at the heart of Brexit it’s why the vote to leave succeeded; little else really mattered despite the rhetoric.
May told the commons today she wants free movement restricted because the British voted for it and free market access. That's her opening stance for the negotiations. Everybody involved, including her know that's never going to happen. So unless she is foolish enough to devastate the UK economy, compromises on free movement are inevitable.
Better start getting used to it, that’s politics folks. May has already done a volte-face with her beliefs on Brexit. Gaining free market access is a necessity, some sacrifice will be made. Don't forget all May has to do politically is to fullfill the wishes of the majority who voted leave is leave the EU. 'Brexit means Brexit'. That does not mean very much. As always the devils in the detail.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 26/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Mickeyfinn you appear to be in denial of the reality that without CONTROL of our borders and all the implications therein we are at risk from a proliferation of intolerance (which sadly is already happening in certain areas), not to mention the financial implications and stresses on our infrastructure, education system, health system etc, from the policies that are being imposed on us by an intransigent EU who refuse to recognise or be willing to respond to these facts.
We cant carry on like this as a magnet for uncontrolled migration without the ability to realistically identify if we need or indeed can even accommodate or adequately forward plan for the migrants in the areas already so badly impacted. To lose control in this way will without doubt only exacerbate the situation in the UK, and for the EU to be unwilling to take on board these compromising consequences is not only inflexible but hypocritical considering part of their original aims was to provide stability across Europe ....
Many other member states are now realising that this is an issue of major concern, and without a flexible and fair plan in place more and more citizens are becoming equally disillusioned with the EU system.
I repeat it doesn't have to be this way....... the fact that the EU bureaucrats refused to reassure citizens of a willingness to reform and review the impact from uncontrolled migration during the campaign, to provide for better forward planning and respite in the interim, only reinforces their inability to recognise a growing problem across member states.
5
Like
|
Ads
I've touched on this in a few different ways, but probably not put it quite like this... Immigration seems to be a hot button for a lot of people. Maybe it was a lightning rod used by opportunistic pollies. I genuinely dont know.
But I will say this; the issue of unemployment being related to immigrants, is a total farce. Our employment rate is now the highest its ever been, GDP needs population growth to be sustainable, we have a greying demographic who are exiting the workforce, and consequently tax receipts are declining. The health budget is going up due to these same retirees, and the proportionately smaller number of employed would have to pick up the slack to pay for these longer living retirees.
We also have questions around who will look after these people when they move into care homes.
Now, when you overlay the current unemployment stats of 4.9%, I genuinely look at this, and cant for the life of me understand what the problem is. Business is screaming out for more qualified staff, and the general consensus seems to be "nah, stuff 'em".
If I look at this purely from an economics point of view, I simply do not understand the problem. It seems to me that immigration (of which the UK has participated in ever since day 1), solves the problem of skills, labour, and tax receipts, whilst allowing GDP growth to continue. Every single person who owns a home benefits from increasing capital gains, and our standard of living has gone up tremendously in recent decades.
If I've missed anything from an economics point of view, I'd love to be educated on it.
Because the flip side, to me, seems to be an emotive, irrational dialogue. Not only that, but if I could play devils advocate for a second, if France tells us to "shove off" and puts the UK border back in the UK, has anyone stopped to consider what that would mean for arrivals who actually make it here FIRST, before being stopped on the continent? Moving the brideghead back to the UK may have ramifications, and we cannot tell the French what to do in their own country.
1
Like
|
I do take on board your perspective rob-j1, but please look also to the economic realities of those areas badly affected and see the impact on lack of housing due to swift and growing demands, rising rents as a consequence, schools stretched to their limits and having to provide language assistants, extra teaching staff, expansive infrastructure demands etc, pay scales eroded and compromised by organised foreign companies bringing in their own workforce where this income is worth more taking into account their living costs back at home, the increasing incidence of zero hours contract, the staff having to administer a complex costly system to recoup monies from the respective EU countries, extra stresses on overstretched GP surgeries and maternity units etc (expanding families and accomodating those with language reqts), the frustration from those in non affluent areas where preference appears to have been given to foreign non skilled workers, the unaffordability of young people unable to keep up with the consequential rising cost of housing having to remain (or return) home to live with their parents, maturing foreign students impacting job vacancies which would have otherwise been filled by UK nationals, the impact on reskilling nationals as more UK youngsters turn their back on higher education having to take up lower skilled employment given the shifting and growing reqt to make early provision for the increasing cost of housing/rents etc, 240% increase in EU inmates in UK jails at a cost of £150 million whilst being unable to repatriate due to human rights issues (their jails are worse than ours),..... a sad spiral of consequences .........
Just a few problems to reflect upon.
p.s.It's important to stress that I take no pleasure in having to reinforce these apsects and do NOT wish to add to the proliferation of intolerance, but you asked for some economic realities and aspects leading to disillusionment etc rob-j1.
This message was last edited by ads on 26/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 26/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 26/10/2016.
3
Like
|
Ads
What you've described sounds to me like just another revolution, eg the industrial revolution, information revolution, and now we're in the digital revolution, which is underpinned by globalisation. Thanks to disruptive technology, just as there are winners, there will be losers.
No one I know of seems to be mourning the loss of the typing pool, and yet today I can bang out hundreds of copies of a document at the press of a button.
But I return to what I said previously; unemployment is just 4.9%. The number of people who have lost out is much much smaller than the number who have benefited.I hate to say it, but this is the world we live in today.
Progress waits for no man, and if the UK doesnt embrace it, other countries will, and we will be left behind. Protectionism is a false ideology, and has been seen to be a failure everywhere. The UKs purchasing power and hence standard of living had been growing tremendously well; just look at all the retirees who have had solid growth in their own UK properties, allowing them to purchase properties overseas through their equity growth position.
This was fine, up until recent events where the pound has plummeted, which will mean our currency is unable to buy what it used to. Living standards will decline for all.
Anyway, I get the feeling I've said my piece, and I dont want others to feel like I'm flogging a dead horse.
1
Like
|
Rob_j1
This is not protectionism it's seeking an outward looking global alternative and a new relationship with the EU brought about sadly by bureaucratic intransigence and unwillingness to recognise compromising failures (which many remainers also recognised but in the hope of achieving reform).
Best we leave it there and agree to disagree!
3
Like
|
World trade organisation director-general Roberto Azevedo quoted as saying that Brexit will not disrupt UK trade and said he will work "intensely" to make sure the process is "fast and smooth".
This message was last edited by ads on 27/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Rob
If you wish to see protectionism, try working with the traditionalists in Spain.
In many businesses and in public sector nothing has changed in 60 years and only now are the younger generation real using change is necessary to create jobs, growth etc.
They cannot rely on tourism and EU funding forever.
1
Like
|
Ads wrote:
Mickeyfinn you appear to be in denial of the reality that without CONTROL of our borders and all the implications therein we are at risk from a proliferation of intolerance (which sadly is already happening in certain areas), not to mention the financial implications and stresses on our infrastructure, education system, health system etc, from the policies that are being imposed on us by an intransigent EU who refuse to recognise or be willing to respond to these facts.
Not denial ads but absolute opposition to that principle. I believe the free movement of people within the EU enhances and benefits the individual countries diversity, education and economic prospects. There is also a difference between immigration from elsewhere in the world and EU nationals. That does require some control in my view which is supposed to be already in place, will not change after Brexit and has confused a wide body of the UK electorate into voting leave.
It is not EU intransigence. Free movement is a founding principle of the EU. Why should they change that to accommodate one member’s intolerance? It is better to be rid of that troublesome member than weaken what is one of the great advantages of living in a Europe without borders.
A percentage of British are hung up on this issue. Never do they consider that their nation will be much poorer without skilled and unskilled workers from Europe. It’s a vast pool of labour the country cannot satisfy from their own nationals. Many don’t want to work because of excessively generous social benefits. Many simply don’t have the education or skills business requires.
I have now come round to the view that most Europeans welcome Britain leaving the EU. Britain has held up the development of the union and although Europe will miss the countries participation, in the long run the EU will benefit from Brexit and the UK will not.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
I dont get this taking back control of our borders!
The UK has control over its borders now
UK is NOT part of the schengen agreement and the borders are NOT open to anyone. Yes EU citizens have the right to come to the UK under the freedom of movement but they are checked and they can be refused entry.
The border (by roads mainly) between France and Spain for example are NOT controlled and open to anyone who is travelling across Europe as with many other EU countries who are part of shengen agreement.
Non EU citizens do NOT have open access to the UK because borders are controlled and they are far more of a problem for migration than EU citizens which Brexit will have no impact on!!
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
Micky
The only immigration that will ever work is 'controlled immigration', this is something that WE must be in control of not the EU.
If the jobs are there and cannot be filled from within the UK then yes immigration is a good thing provided we adapt the infrastructure to be able to accomodate them.
0
Like
|
In theory free movement sounds great and an ideal that SHOULD bring all the benefits you espouse Mickeyfinn ....but here's where we differ.
IMHO in reality to do so with little forward planning or flexibility in terms of timeframe or controls in place to make adequate preparations and considerations for all the knock on effects that have transpired from SWIFT increases in population as identified (not theory but reality) and risk the social cohesion of a recipient nation that normally welcomes diversity, is tolerant, caring in their social structure, and adheres and encourages, where required, regulatory standards in that process, does a grave disservice to that principle of free movement.
Not paying attention to the need for transitions and controls when there becomes a swift major imbalance, until such time as the factors governing both recipient country and country from exit are better accommodated and better resolved ( such factors as catering better for the sources of major unemployment, or better regulatory structures in place to discourage abuse or uncivilised behaviour, adequate deterrents... I'm thinking of the proliferation of uncontrolled corruption or criminal behaviour, etc) all play their part in this becoming a workable principle.
To leave this uncontrolled, without forethought or adequate planning, or flexibility to respond to negative knock on effects that has the potential to play into the hands of political extremes IMHO is wrong, and risks undermining an honourable objective, which is to work wherever possible in harmony with others, and follow best practice, be willing to respond to uncomfortable realities, aspire to outward looking trade to maximise skills, enhance new skills, but always be willing to listen in that process to the concerns of citizens wherever they have the potential to undermine the principles of cohesion and tolerance....which to me requires an inbuilt flexibility to respond, which currently and sadly does not exist in the current EU system.
This is what I mean by intransigence.
This message was last edited by ads on 27/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 27/10/2016.
2
Like
|