Who should be next UK PM?

This is more complicated than you suggest Baz, please see

Free movement of people 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union

As per the above website If you check the summary chart titled “Establishment of rights of nationals of each EEA member state to work in each other member state”

you will see that there were no restrictions to movements beyond the dates identified, and when the UK leader David Cameron requested a delay ( he asked for a further 6 years to prepare)  to the second round of free movements following the previous swift increases that had ensued (due to the labour government never requesting delays!), this request was denied by the EU! 

(Note the inference has been made that the labour Govt cynically were hoping these EU citizens would add to their votes once settled in the UK).

But nowhere did it state that citizens had to prove they actually had work placements to come to, within these rights. 

Why then did the EU refuse the albeit belated request for delays from the UK Conservative Govt under David Cameron to the lifting of restrictions, when the previous dates of lifting restrictions for Germany France Spain etc had been so different to the UK? 

Why did they refuse to subsequently recognise what negative impacts (already identified ) that these earlier large swift free movements had already impacted on the UK, already struggling to cope with major debt from a Banking crisis not of citizens making,  (sadly requiring austerity measures to control this debt which was incurring spiralling debt repayments) , and then expect the UK to take more citizens?? It beggars belief!

Sorry but this demonstrated a severe lack of understanding and decision making on the EUs part at that critical time, which led to the subsequent understandable disillusionment in the EU establishment.

Yes, ads I glanced at it,  but where is the poverty in the UK that is in question?

The UK is a wealthy country even apart from all it's troubles, I don't like the way it's turning out  (More like disgusted) but that aside it's still the best country in the world for a born and bred UK person to live in.

The EU could have worked but it needed very hard leaders from all members to make that happen.

Free movement has nothing to do with poverty and only the biggest fools could honestly believe they could up sticks and move to anywhere within the EU and carry on like they were still back in the UK.

The EU refused Cameron any concessions due to no doubt they could see his weakness and knowing if they said 'No' he would say 'Okay' and he did just that.

Labour had a few years in power, blair and co, who on earth thinks it was 'Good years' with these idiots running the asylum.

But this still doesn't correct the poverty bit thats missing in the UK.

Free movement and the Banking crisis exacerbated poverty Baz,  given the need to redirect monies to deal with uncontrolled swift movements of people coming into the country from the EU’s free movement   policy, i.e. the need to prop up health, education, transport, housing systems etc, which became overwhelmed by the sudden influx.

This alongside austerity measures to reduce our spiralling debt resulted in the growth of food banks and homelessness, lowering of wages due to zero hours contracts following an over supply of labour, etc

This has been shown in many of the statistics from various sources, that act as indicators of the concerning growth in poverty in the UK ( some of which Perrypower has noted in his previous response).

It certainly makes for uncomfortable reading and we can only hope that a swift Brexit deal will allow the UK to move on and address the many issues from within.

It’s going to take bold decisions and will become increasingly reliant upon the ability to generate growth, and ultimately assist those most in need within our own society. One thing that we can still be proud of is the citizen culture of charitable giving when required, not only within our own nation but also further afield. The likes of hospices, children in need, sports relief, voluntary sectors, etc.... all manner of good positive intent.

The tories have been running the uk for the past decade. They are 100% to blame for the present situation. The EU offered Cameron a better deal than May's, but seeing the lunatic right wingers drift towards UKIP, he held a referendum for the benefit of the tory party. May then negotiated for 3 years with the extremists in her party (Hammond's words) instead of the commons....resulting in the present insanity. This clique of spivs and wide men masquerading as toffs like Rees Mogg will make money from shorting out on the pound while all the present forecasts show economic disaster for the rest of the UK if they get their way. As for Labour spending...you've got to laugh. Both tory candidates are stating that they'll borrow money to keep us going....this despite  decade of austerity and cuts in public services which has seen our national debt rise from £1 trillion to £1.8 trillion under them....

Mixed details there... A few detailed questions...

What specific detail did the EU offer Cameron better than the May deal?

Why for instance would the EU allow other member states to delay their dates relating to lifting restrictions to movements of EU citizens from Eastern European member states, and then later deny the UK the same concession? Some of these dates identify a significant  difference as follows

France- 4 years extra delay compared to the UK

Germany and Austria - 7 years extra delay compared to the UK

It’s hypocrisy to suggest that this would not have equally benefitted the UK at the later point in time that Cameron requested concessions. No wonder there was an early major influx to the UK ( during the Blair years) when they were denied entry to other relatively “affluent” countries. The EU Commission would have been fully aware of what was going on and certainly would have been aware of the swift impact on the UK... but still they still chose to turn blind eyes. Total and unfair mismanagement on the EUs part I’m afraid.

Have you also examined the detail from the alternative economic forecast that challenges the UK treasury forecast, and are you aware that the previous alternative economic forecast from these economists proved accurate, so much so the UK treasury later re-evaluated their modelling system? 

As for austerity and cuts in public services during this last decade....that is exactly the point made previously with regard to the financial crash and swift influx of citizens both of which sadly required austerity measures to try and control the spiralling debt payments. So now finally as the debt deficit has reduced we are  now ironically being compromised by lack of swift ability to leave and improve the conditions to restore our own growth and regain control over migration to the levels we can sustain and need.

Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996/97, the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That's a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which compares to a 71% rise over seven years with Conservative Chancellors between 2009/10 and 2016/17.

True both candidates are speaking of spending like no tomorrow, but, and it's a big BUT, this might not happen with who ever gets the job due to the powers behind the PM could well block any drastic spending, talk is cheap, and plentiful if you want the power job.

No wonder there was an early major influx to the UK ( during the Blair years) when they were denied entry to other relatively “affluent” countries. The EU Commission would have been fully aware of what was going on and certainly would have been aware of the swift impact on the UK... but still they still chose to turn blind eyes. Total and unfair mismanagement on the EUs part I’m afraid.

Hasn't it been mentioned many times that the UK has laws in place to stop any mass influx that would cause problems to  the UK's well being and economy yet choose not to implement them, if thats true why is this the EU's fault because we have weak leaders who choose not to stand up against the EU.

Suggesting that the UK's increase in debt was caused by EU immigrants is on a par with Trump shouting go back to where you came from at America women who have been in the USA longer than his wife.  It is untrue ads.

Perrypower,

Where has it been stated that the UKs debt  was caused by EU immigrants?

Please read the details which suggest that the debt was exacerbated by the Banking crisis and this required austerity measures to control spiralling debt repayments and that the impact of swift free movement led to major additional pressures on a UK economy already struggling to control its debt.

Baz

The details relating to freedom of movement controls are complex.

It might be useful therefore to read a report dated 2011 with regard to EU freedom of movement controls which even back then was noting concerns relating to the impact of lowering of wages “wage dumping” and “ welfare tourism” as treaty arrangements were extended. Sadly many of these observed concerns became realities in the UK as economic drivers explained in this report made the UK a desired destination for many.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-movement-europe-past-and-present

Repeating the same distortions of the truth over and over does not make them any less distorted. 

Brexit is dead.  

These are some uncomfortable realities that need to be considered , https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem and unless the EU were to comprehend the implications for the UK population growth factors which have to be accounted for in terms of the necessity to regain control ( according to need) and make adequate preparation for ( according to infrastructure etc),  which appears nigh on impossible given the current EU rules, it would appear crazy for us not to have learned the lessons to date and continue down a road that would compromise us so significantly going forward. 

Burying one’s head in the sand is no solution.

We need to regain control and work for a mutually acceptable deal and trading arrangements going forward. The UK does not appear to sit comfortably in the EU structure, and given the federal aspirations of the new President of the EU Commission, reform appears to have been discounted. More uncomfortable realities to consider.

Angela Merkel has just remarked that the UK would remain as a close partner if not within the EU ...

p.s. Angela Merkel has also just stated that the Irish backstop will be “overwritten”, if a solution to the issue is found  for the Brexit Deal’s  Political Declaration..... 

This message was last edited by ads on 19/07/2019.

Please stop blaming immigrants from the EU for the nasty Tories not putting a fair and honest amount of money into public services.   

The Tories want to "gain control" as you put it to reduce taxation on the well off and privatise public services. They intend to allow US private healthcare companies to run the NHS.

The OBR this week estimate a no-deal exit will cost 30bn of extra government borrowing and at least a year-long recession. That means less government investment in public services, collapsed Sterling and unemployment. 

The people "burying their heads in the sand" are Brexiteers who are intent on wrecking the country for ideological reasons and no other.

That is all a matter of opinion, your opinion.

Unfortunately , to repeat, it is not so black and white as you suggest.

To make this a political tribal issue is to completely ignore the harm that has been done by the EU’s failure to take note of the effects from their free movement policy on the UK at a time when UK citizens were exposed to both a Governments action to allow such an uncontrolled sudden and swift movement of people into the country ( happened to be labour)  without having the infrastructure etc  in place to accommodate for this policy, and at that same time they were being exposed to understandable austerity measures necessary to deal with spiralling debt repayments caused by the Banking crisis, again not of their making. 

So when the next UK Govt came into power ( happened to be Conservative) led by Cameron and they tried to get the EU Commission to comprehend the problems the country and citizens were subsequently being exposed to by both of these uncontrolled events, and request a delay to the next upcoming dates for lifting of restrictions ( look to the details as identified in the country by country chart), their pleas were ignored.

So what followed from this unforgivable intransigent approach? The citizens of the UK were then further exposed by even more uncontrolled and swift movements, leading to all manner of issues already identified,.... wage dumping, immense pressures on the welfare,  education and housing systems etc (following even further relaxation of EU rules allowing family to accompany workers), and before you know it the citizens of the UK ( from all political persuasions I hasten to add) felt understandably vulnerable.

This major failure of the EU Commisssion at that time to comprehend the issues caused by their actions led directly to disillusionment in an establishment unwilling to recognise the realities of their policies. Policies that sadly led to major unintended consequences, where UK citizens were scapegoated in that process.

But this was not just about freedom of movement. It was also a failure of the EU Commission to recognise the need for them to focus on growth mechanisms within member states to minimise the economic realities from major unemployment where economic migrants would HAVE to go in search of work elsewhere.... It wasn’t citizens faults, it was failures from not having thought through the impact of idealistic policies and unintended consequences.

But then this became even further  exacerbated by an intransigence to respond when such consequences were being identified by the UK Govt at that time ( happened to be Conservative), whose citizens were reeling from the effects.

But the saddest aspect of all, was that it didn’t have to be this way.

If the EU Commission had responded by permitting a delay for the UK at the point of the second round of lifting of restrictions ( thus compensating for other countries such as Germany and Austria and France who had not taken in migrants during the 4 or 7 years when the UK had earlier done so), then this would never have happened.

So please don’t think that I intend to point fingers at migrants, as that is the last thing I intend. I’m trying to point out that it is not so black and white as some would have you believe. It is a sequence of events that was badly mismanaged from a much higher perspective and failures of not responding to major unintended consequences that left the UK in an incredibly difficult position. 

Lessons need to be learned from a much higher level perspective, and it is all too easy to point fingers at a Govt now trying to respond to its citizens who have democratically chosen to leave the EU. Trust in the EU establishment has been lost not just by Conservative voters but voters from ALL political persuasions.

Now we all need to strive for all our sakes for a mutually acceptable deal and good trading arrangements that finally recognise the need to respond to CITIZENS  needs, and stop the political finger pointing.

Didn't the free movement policy mean anyone who was an EU citizen allowed to travel between EU countries with little or no restrictions, now whats wrong with this policy? As we know it helps the UK people also.

People seem to be getting in a right ole muddle with the 'Free movement of EU citizens' causing the UK problems, I for one don't know that many Dutch, French, Spanish, Germans ect etc who have moved to, and stayed to live and work in the UK.

But I do know Kurds, Iraq's Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Africans, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Afghans, Turks, Syrian's, Serbs, who have moved to the UK in their many thousands.

So before people keep on bleating about the problems caused by (Genuine) people from the EU causing problems with services and so on it would be wise to stop knocking the EU for causing this particular problem, they haven't,  sure the EU could have brought in laws to perhaps change the way that, in particular France handles those who arrived in France, then yes the EU has a little to answer for, the millions of others who shouldn't be here have caused most of the problems, which in turn is solely the blame of the UK who in turn has had the weakest and useless leaders ever know in years.

OK I get the point of other nationalities coming to the UK and yes of course there is/ was need to control these movements, but there has also been a politically correct movement ( again could be politically orientated) who were very vocal at this time to point out that we should not be discriminatory in our choices of who should or should not be allowed entry....so again quite a sensitive subject for which the UK and its psyche to integrate and welcome citizens after the war plays its part.

Having said all of that, no matter where the migrants were coming from, that does not make any excuse for not recognising a policy that REMOVES a nation’s ability to control such movements and exacerbate an already sensitive scenario. To ignore this is to undermine a nation of citizens best interests and leads to unnecessary division and alienation.

This is not “ bleating on”, it’s a case of opening minds to wider perspectives and a sequence of events that has led to the status quo with a view to learning from this, whether this be at Govt level or EU level, but to suggest it is only at the behest of one political party is wrong. 

The other compromising aspect relating to the EU has been to restrict nations from adjusting their currencies( devalue) to compensate for their own individual economic circumstance.

Note: Currency devaluations can be used by countries to achieve economic policy. Having a weaker currency relative to the rest of the world can help boost exports, shrink trade deficits and reduce the cost of interest payments on its outstanding government debts.

All of these aspects have affected various member states which is partly why some have benefitted at great expense to others ....and who are the losers?...citizens who have been left scapegoated in this process.

As for movements of people across Europe, in reality there have been major problems encountered when the recipient nations have differing economic buying power, such that for instance there were unintended consequences as British  German and Scandinavian buyers suddenly affected the Spanish nationals ability to purchase property as property prices boomed. This together with failures to regulate Banks, developers, etc and take action to protect from corrupt practices, resulted in many citizens being scapegoated. The EU during this heady period turned all too many blind eyes to uncomfortable realities and when asked to protect innocent citizens they failed miserably  in this regard.

There are so many complex factors that have arisen from unintended consequences that we should all remain open minded to these realities so that lessons can be learned, especially when it results in division and intolerance.

Do you think if you put it in Bold and Underline it it makes it more true?  Sorry but it does not, it just makes you shouty.

Don’t  mean to be shouty....thought it might highlight the key points!

The UK authorities welcomed and encouraged immigration into the UK. It is our duty to respect all nationalities whatever their culture. The UK is the world leader in multi culture.

Agreed but when external decisions are taken that take away controls that are intended to retain cohesion and prevent impacts that affect ALL citizens, migrants and nationals, then it’s time for a rethink.