What is with the fixation on 'right to live and work' in the EU

how about this: we can allow all former UK nationals to return if the respective EU state, in all of their liberal wisdom, decides that they don't want them there anymore. in terms of the EU citizens that are already in the UK, let them stay, so long as they came here before the referendum. unless they're criminals obviously.

how is that a difficult issue to deal with?

Effectively granting UK citizenship to 3.3 million EU nationals living in the UK isn't a difficult issue? The complications of that are enormous, let alone the costs. Having thousands of expats flood back into the country won't help either, or deciding that they are no longer officially UK citizens, depending on what happens.

Also yay for more instability, that's always fun.

oh my god, costs? really? you means there's going to be actual costs after brexit? oh me oh my, oh my oh dear...you don't say?

We are not asking to stay in the single market, we are looking to form a free trade agreement with the EU. This is what is proposed on the UK's side on the table, however the EU is looking to make free movement a compulsory requirement.

The Canada-EU agreement is a FTA and allows access to the single market but this does not mean they are inside the single market.

what do you think the world trade organisation does, sweety?

Services isn't included, "sweetie".


Posted from TSR Mobile

oh gee, what ever are we to do...?
if we have no deal between another state or institution, then they can impose whatever tariff they want, but equally we can impose whatever tariff we want onto them. if they charge too much, they'll lose business and money. so it's their call I guess. they're just like any other state. and yes, I'm saying "state" because there's no way the EU isn't one at this stage in political history. the only thing they lack is their own executive branch (not government - executive). but that's nothing, seeing as the EU is a suzerain.

I know right? It's not like our economy depends upon the service sector.

Tariffs aren't the main issue. Non-tariff barriers are also applied to services. Single market access removes these barriers which (amongst other things) is why we want to retain access. Our service, particularly financial, sector will suffer otherwise. For example you've probably heard of banks being able to get 'passports' which cut the costs of running banks abroad.

I think you are starting to tell me what people on my side, including myself are asking for. The position of the government is that they want access to the single market but no free movement.

I personally would fully support a Canadian style free trade agreement, but then again you are ignoring that because you believe it is not what we are asking for.

This is what trade agreements are for, to agree on a common standard in which both sides can trade. Also by being within the single market, we are prevented from establishing trade agreements with non-EU states which would open up more trade opportunities.

This would also mean that those non-EU countries do not need to comply with EU standard but a standard that is agreed with the UK.

This is not always the case. For example if the UK is to have a looser regulation on a certain good, and the EU has a higher level regulation, you will find that the total compliance cost is lower. Some products sold here in the UK can be designed and complied cheaper, which means it could be produced cheaper.

This is also the case for international trade with non-EU countries.

Let's be real, we are talking about UK banks here, most of them do have subsidiaries and operate on an international level.

Even in the rare exception that a bank does not have a subsidiary, it is not at all difficult for such a large corporation to establish a subsidiary if it wants to do business there.

The ongoing cost sustain a licence with the EU state will be paid by someone eventually. It is either the state or the bank, someone has to pay. As for non-tariff barriers outside the single market but under a FTA, I have explained already that there is an increased flexibility for businesses to reduce compliance cost and to also explore more trading opportunities.

We are talking about flexibility vs simplicity here. While there is high efficiency with simplicity, flexibility offers more opportunities and potential to lower regulations for domestic and non-EU international trades. You choose which version you want, but I am glad that the government is opting for flexibility.

One thing to note is that net migration from the EU had increased dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis, reaching a record high in the latest figures.

Consider that if an industry in the service sector employs 15% EU workers, this would mean a 7.5% drop in wage. You simply cannot dismiss this is a minor effect.

For EU migrants, we do not have a points system.

As for the contribution figure quoted on your link, the page specifically mentioned that the research does not present the whole picture of their costs and contribution.

Nevertheless it is not good to talk about the result (especially when the result isn't regarded as accurate), when you know that the system can be improved. It is always good to have requirements and control over who can successfully apply for citizenship.

It is entirely your opinion what constitutes the UK 'shooting itself on the foot'. I am happy with the government's current position and that it seems to be supporting the principle and benefits of free trade without free movement.

However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

Not you, the government, and the industries clamoring for access to the single market - former has no idea what it wants to do, and latter certainly doesn't mean 'FTA for goods is okay'.

1. I've not seen UK government saying they'd like something similar to CETA, do link it if you have.
2. CETA, even if agreed doesn't cover services making it terrible deal by itself, it doesn't even cover all the tariffs, or regulations. If that's all you're asking EU for, I doubt they'll have a lot of problem.

If we were so awesome at having our own long distance free trade deals, why did we join the EU in the first place? We attempted to establish our own free trade area, and negotiate our own free trade deals; that wasn't a massive success and there's no reason to imagine it'd be a success now either because fundamental issue hasn't changed - UK market of 60 million is less valuable to country than a European market of 700 million people; therefore latter will have much higher bargaining power than the former.

So we're going to have different regulations; which any company operating from here and selling to EU (about half of our industries) will need to abide by?

Only if you're not then selling same good to EU, which half of our companies do - otherwise you're running two production line instead of one. If UK economy was established in such a way that minimal amount of product was being sold to EU, then sure this'd make sense - except that's not the case.

Which we'd be able to negotiate better representing 700 million customers rather than representing 60 million customers.

5,500 companies in UK are reliant on passporting; ie. they don't have subsidiary - merely a branch because that makes more sense than subsidiary since that means you don't need as much money to qualify for same thing; same with moving money if branch is at a loss - I'd be surprised if any significant proportion have subsidiary in UK and another EU state except when thats beneficial for tax reasons (Ireland for some).

That is the problem; so a company establishes new subsidiary in Frankfurt which will require some minimum capital etc to be set up; it does that and now it has exact same operation it has in UK running in EU. This is wasteful since there's duplication going on, and now you've Euro handling division in Europe there's no need to have them in UK; so those people can be moved out of London. We just lost tax base.

Flexibility to do what? Most of our exports are going to EU so most companies will need to comply with those regulations anyways; and UK ones. If UK is inferior to EU's then one line works, but if its just different (washing chicken with chlorine vs not washing with chlorine) then you need two parallel processes to comply two standards.
The cost to sustain licence with EU wouldn't have to be paid by anyone if we're in single market, it's just same licence as one needed to trade in UK. Easy and same cost.

It is? Because last I heard government doesn't know what its supposed to be doing wrt Brexit.

That'd require 15% increase of in one year; for reference from 1993 to 2014 the total increase has been of 7%; year on year that represents 0.16% loss of wage for the worse affected. Or to say if everyone born abroad regardless of if they're from EU, and if they're now citizens left in the same year (and this didn't instantly implode the economy) then unskilled and semi-skilled sector workers on would get raise of 8.35% or about 2.5k on 30k salary. Migrants are practically speaking doing nothing to the wage.

Yes which makes them perfect control group; contrasting the contribution made by EU migrant (no point based) to non EU migrant (points based).

Point wasn't to compare that as absolute figure, but to use same standard measure for migrants from non EU and EU country; so while there may be other considerations since same considerations are being applied to both groups it works - given non points based system at the moment doesn't give that much worse result to points based system (or by some measure better results); where's benefit of using points based on EU?

Government doesn't have a position. David Davis ruled out common market, may corrected him saying that was his opinion, then may blabbed on about how she was going to be ambitious without outlying anything, Hammond thinks everything on the table and that we're unlikely to get single market but banks will still be in single market.

We are not asking to stay in the single market, we are looking to form a free trade agreement with the EU. This is what is proposed on the UK's side on the table, however the EU is looking to make free movement a compulsory requirement.

No one has confirmed it is not UK government policy to remain within the single market in one way or another. Neither is free movement an absolute. Until now, we have often treated it as free movement of people, despite it being the free movement of workers. There are additional limitations that can be established without violating that principle.

There's no absolute distinction there, it is about levels of access to the single market rather than some notion of membership. These can be, and are, varied.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/17/eastern-bloc-countries-will-uphold-citizens-rights-to-live-in-uk

Apparently Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are preparing to 'veto' all Brexit deals unless the UK can guarantee its citizens their rights to live and work in the UK.

Naturally I'm not surprised by their stance, as they seem to be the net beneficiaries of the free movement principle and the EU budget.

However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

Why do they feel that they are entitled to live wherever they want in the EU?

In my opinion this sense of entitlement is partly what corrupts the EU. Its citizens and politicians have no sense of duty to contribute and act in the interest of their nation. When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits. Just look at countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There is a lack of motivation for politicians to act in their country's interest as most of them considers the EU as their final career destination, and many had already landed a safe job in the EU. Many of their citizens now moving to richer EU states for better prospects. While their motives are understandable, this exodus of workforce and brain drain will only exacerbate their country's economy. Countries like Greece and Spain are now economic wasteland because of this lack of discipline from both ends.

I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market. Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally. The fact that the EU wants to add free movement to the negotiation table makes it clear that fairness is not what the EU is aiming for.

For reasons I mentioned above, in my opinion the UK must not accept or compromise on free movement, even if it means trading with tariffs under WTO.

Just as the V4 group is perfectly entitled to their stance, we must also be ready to defend our stance on this important issue.

As a Hong Kong immigrant qualified for British citizenship under the British Nationality Selection scheme, free movement is extremely unprincipled to me. My family had to satisfy a point-based and quota system in order to become British citizens, and I expect the same from others.

If you're not European (using the term loosely here) you cannot understand what it means being part of something like that. It's not a sense of entitlement, it's a sense of communality in the greater sense, if you like. I was born after the EEC was formed and I always took it for granted. Brexit was such a shock for me that I wish I had the money to leave and go to live elsewhere.
As a dual citizen, I also had to satisfy requirements to become a British citizen, it's not like the citizenship is for sale at the local market ;-)
Please inform yourself correctly before getting angry about something that doesn't even exist.

I'm not at all angry about it to be honest, we voted for Brexit and won. If anyone is to be angry, it would be you. So please don't play the 'emotion' card in a debate forum.

So tell me we what is the requirement for EU nationals to live or work in the UK at the moment? There isn't any. As for citizenship, the main requirement is to have lived here for 5 years, for which the EU 'rights' to live and work make it easy to fulfill. The requirement is not skill based. With respect, the requirements you were subjected to were very low.

As for the sense of community, you can only speak for yourself. So please don't tell me what I understand or not, assumptions do not belong to a debate forum. Brexit has been largely a debate on soveignty, democracy and accountability. Most voted Brexit due to these issues, not because they feel any less of an European than you.

I see, time wasted to inform someone like you, you already know it all. I'll leave it at that.

I've not lost anything because I'm still a European citizen, by virtue of one citizenship, and a British citizen. Who lost and what again?I've still the same freedom as I had before, sorry for breaking it to you.Nope, you need a PR card to get citizenship and its requirements are the same for any non EU citizen (except the visa part).
Get informed before spouting non-sense.
Given that I've been granted visas for other non Eu country too, low requirements to whom? Bye.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/17/eastern-bloc-countries-will-uphold-citizens-rights-to-live-in-uk

Apparently Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are preparing to 'veto' all Brexit deals unless the UK can guarantee its citizens their rights to live and work in the UK.

Naturally I'm not surprised by their stance, as they seem to be the net beneficiaries of the free movement principle and the EU budget.

However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

Why do they feel that they are entitled to live wherever they want in the EU?

In my opinion this sense of entitlement is partly what corrupts the EU. Its citizens and politicians have no sense of duty to contribute and act in the interest of their nation. When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits. Just look at countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There is a lack of motivation for politicians to act in their country's interest as most of them considers the EU as their final career destination, and many had already landed a safe job in the EU. Many of their citizens now moving to richer EU states for better prospects. While their motives are understandable, this exodus of workforce and brain drain will only exacerbate their country's economy. Countries like Greece and Spain are now economic wasteland because of this lack of discipline from both ends.

I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market. Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally. The fact that the EU wants to add free movement to the negotiation table makes it clear that fairness is not what the EU is aiming for.

For reasons I mentioned above, in my opinion the UK must not accept or compromise on free movement, even if it means trading with tariffs under WTO.

Just as the V4 group is perfectly entitled to their stance, we must also be ready to defend our stance on this important issue.

Cherishing stops as soon as it's someone else's?

Personally, I am of the opinion, why are you so entitled that you get to live in your country? Because you were born there? Within an area arbitrarily defined by drawing lines on a map?