UKH

/ Single market for goods + free movement of people

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Bob Hughes - on 21 Jun 2018

There are a few more rumblings in this direction: the compromise could be an association agreement (like Ukraine) where we can freely trade goods with the EU (not services) in exchange for allowing free movement of people. 

Free movement of people won't be attractive to many in the Brexit camp in parliament (not necessarily all) but this might be fudged ith some clever wording. 

What would UKC's Brexit camp think of this compromise? Acceptable? Is freedom of movement a hard red line? 

More information here:  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/may-risks-row-with-brexiters-over-plan-for-single-market-for-goods

summo on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Not all brexiteers are against free movement.

Although I think your example above is giving it away too readily and should include trade in services as well, given the size of the sector in the UK. 

1
Bob Hughes - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to summo:

> Not all brexiteers are against free movement.

That's partly why i asked. the way this is reported you'd get the idea that free movement is a red line for all brexit supporters. I'm wondering just how true that is. 

> Although I think your example above is giving it away too readily and should include trade in services as well, given the size of the sector in the UK. 

I think the logic is:

1. The free market has never really worked in services so not much benefit staying in, but we'd have to become a rule-taker to do that

2. Services is the one area where we export more to outside the EU than to the EU. (services exports 37% to EU / 63% outside EU) so more benefit to be gained from an independent trade policy with respect to services

3. The free market is services is the main justification for the fourth freedom (of movement) so excluding it gives us maximum room to get some kind of wiggle room on that

 

 

thomasadixon - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

It's rather short of any sort of detail to be able to answer.  What does a "degree" of freedom of movement even mean?  Under freedom of movement we're subject to EU law and that law decides the rules for people entering the country.  To have us subject to EU law is a (the) red line.

Billhook - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

I'm against everything.

 

Bob Hughes - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It's rather short of any sort of detail to be able to answer.  What does a "degree" of freedom of movement even mean? 

well i suppose we don't know yet because it still needs to be defined. But could mean that the UK would be able to apply certain additional controls to the free entry of EU citizens. 

> Under freedom of movement we're subject to EU law and that law decides the rules for people entering the country.  To have us subject to EU law is a (the) red line.

Is there a typo in this sentence? It is not your normal clear and cogent self... Do you mean that being subject to EU law is more important to you than control over immigration? 

Bob Hughes - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Billhook:

i gave this a like...

krikoman - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It's rather short of any sort of detail to be able to answer.  What does a "degree" of freedom of movement even mean? 

They can go backwards and forwards but not side to side.

 

1
George Ormerod - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Under freedom of movement we're subject to EU law and that law decides the rules for people entering the country.  To have us subject to EU law is a (the) red line.

If we're in the 'single' market for goods, we would have to comply with EU law and there would be a dispute resolution process that would be to all intents and purposes be the ECJ (just as there's a WTO one, should we crash out in a hard Brexit).  To trade internationally, you will always have to give away some sovereignty, that, or operate like North Korea.  Hence the ECJ red line is pointless.  And that's before you even get into the reality of having to remain under ECJ jurisdiction to be a member of Euratom (even as an associate member, like Switzerland), Open Sky, etc.

There's more trouble ahead for the Brexiters as reality grinds the delusional fantasy into dust.

 

 

1
George Ormerod - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> That's partly why i asked. the way this is reported you'd get the idea that free movement is a red line for all brexit supporters. I'm wondering just how true that is. 

> I think the logic is:

> 1. The free market has never really worked in services so not much benefit staying in, but we'd have to become a rule-taker to do that

Good, the company I work for 'exports' consultancy services, which is greatly facilitated by being able to move people around without too much hassle - like having to say you're going for, cough, cough, 'business meetings', you're not doing paid consultancy work. 

 

Bob Kemp - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Billhook:

> I'm against everything.

Down with this sort of thing.

Ramblin dave - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> To have us subject to EU law is a (the) red line.

Serious question - on what basis are you saying that it's a "red line"? Are you just reporting the position of the current government? Or do you believe that it _has_ to be a red line if Brexit is to be meaningful and/or successful?

BnB - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

I think the Guardian article has misrepresented the idea. The proposition goes that restricting single market access to goods only will solve the Irish problem and will constrain EU oversight of UK affairs to dispute resolution and regulatory leadership for goods only, a mere 20% of our economy, with no impact on wider law-making. It is felt that this might not compromise Brexiters’ red lines over NI and self-determination. The UK would be able to arrange trade deals for services worldwide and assert sovereignty in law-making.

Meanwhile, the EU’s overwhelmingly positive balance of trade in goods makes the proposal a “cherry” for the EU to pick which MIGHT prompt them to compromise over free movement to produce a policy that stops short of Brexiters’ red line on migration. The UK would only be 10%  in the single market and an outcast for the remaining 90%, so it wouldn’t cross the EU’s red line to move a little, so the thinking goes.

The challenge is to find a diplomatic formulation that allows both sides to admit the need for compromise and declare themselves satisfied.

1
Pan Ron - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Free movement (to work and reside as currently arranged) would be an acceptable compromise for Brexit to me.  Though I imagine it is a red-line crossed for a great many Brexiters.

What I find surprising is the degree to which Brexiteers, online at least, point to the 52% majority as a mandate for Brexit.  Fair enough.  But its evident that Brexit and Remain mean such different things to so many people that 52% is meaningless unless the various definitions of what those two stances potentially mean is spelled out.  That 52% would surely become something substantially differnt if free-movement is included in the deal.

john arran - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

> That 52% would surely become something substantially differnt if free-movement is included in the deal.

There's only one way to find out whether a majority will be happy with the final agreed outcome.

Pan Ron - on 21 Jun 2018
In reply to john arran:

The problem is, I have been told this is not possible and simply cannot be allowed; because 52% voted for something....2 years ago.....which is probably a different "something" from what >50% want now..... ;-)

krikoman - on 22 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

There's a chance to make your thoughts known this Saturday, should anyone want to join us

https://www.facebook.com/BiEGoesToLondon/

Post edited at 09:02
2
thomasadixon - on 23 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> well i suppose we don't know yet because it still needs to be defined. But could mean that the UK would be able to apply certain additional controls to the free entry of EU citizens. 

Which makes it kind of hard to judge whether I'd be happy with it or not.  If it means that we agree to allow extra/easier work permits for EU nationals, ie preferential access, then that might be fine.

> Is there a typo in this sentence? It is not your normal clear and cogent self... Do you mean that being subject to EU law is more important to you than control over immigration? 

Thanks, although you might mean long winded   Shouldn't reply when I've not really got time!  Control over immigration and being subject to EU law aren't options.  If the ECj gets to rule on decisions about whether person X is allowed in or not, or whether they're entitled to benefits or not, then we don't have control over immigration because we're subject to EU law - the EU has control because it makes the rules/laws.

john yates - on 23 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Bob. The issue has never been opposition to  free movement. It is about who decides on that policy. Out of the EU we could have parties competing on different approaches to migration policy. Inside we have no control over who comes in from EU. It’s Tony  Benn’s point that sovereignty on these fundamental decisions should lie with domestic parliaments. A government could be elected on an open door policy. If it worked and voters liked it, they could be the re elected. If the opposite, they would be voted out and a more restrictive policy enforced. This is not possible inside the EU. And is one of the biggest drivers behind the leave vote. That’s the message behind take back control. It doesn’t mean close borders. It means the repatriation of those powers to elected governments. 

john arran - on 23 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

> That’s the message behind take back control. It doesn’t mean close borders. It means the repatriation of those powers to elected governments. 

... apparently now with no need to trouble Parliament about any of it. Is this the kind of taking back control people voted for?

 

1
Bob Hughes - on 23 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon and John Yates:

 

thanks thomas and John. I think a compromise could be found where EU rules and ECJ jurisdiction apply to the U.K. but only relating to the trade in goods. Then in a separate treaty the U.K. agrees to maintain legislation guaranteeing certain measures on free movement but would technically be free to change that legislation in the future and the eu would have the right to restrict access to the single market in response. This would give the U.K. sovereignty over the core area of free movement. We’d still need to accept eu rules and Ecj decisions on  areas relating to the trade in goods but perhaps that’s a price worth paying?

All this is dependent on the eu accepting the idea of course.

 

 

Post edited at 12:23
krikoman - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

there's a petition here if you'd like to ask for a vote on what, we're being offered.

 

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition

Post edited at 16:38
Tom Last - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Down with this sort of thing.

Careful now

Trangia on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> there's a petition here if you'd like to ask for a vote on what, we're being offered.

The trouble with this is how can we vote NOW for or against a people's vote if we don't know what the wording of a second such referendum is going to be?

It's as naive as the thinking behind a certain referendum we had a year or so ago when the country was asked to vote "Remain" or "Leave" when no-one had the slightest inkling as to what "Leave" actually entailed.......

 

john arran - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Trangia:

> The trouble with this is how can we vote NOW for or against a people's vote if we don't know what the wording of a second such referendum is going to be?

> It's as naive as the thinking behind a certain referendum we had a year or so ago when the country was asked to vote "Remain" or "Leave" when no-one had the slightest inkling as to what "Leave" actually entailed.......

I see your point but really it isn't. The main difference is that, if the people don't get to have a say at all, then whatever shambles of a Brexit deal that May and her cohorts cobble together will be imposed upon us all, like it or not (and polls now seem to suggest mainly 'not'). There's certainly a risk that, even if a People's Vote is approved, it might end up being similarly poorly presented and distorted by lies. But that's a risk and not a certainty. The way I see it, that's a risk we should grasp with both hands, as the alternative at this stage appears to be pretty much a worst-case scenario.

john yates - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to john arran:

I think 17 million had a clear idea. And their views have changed not one jit despite the hysterical Jeremiahs predicting the end of days. 

7
john arran - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I think 17 million had a clear idea. And their views have changed not one jit despite the hysterical Jeremiahs predicting the end of days. 

Well you're entitled to that opinion, but clearly they can't have had any clear idea of the detail of the final agreement - the government still doesn't have that even now. And opinion polls are continuing to show steady divergence from Brexit support too, suggesting that your confidence in knowing the minds of 17 million other individuals may not be well founded.

3
Graeme Alderson on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

You do not speak for 17 million people any more than I do so stop being pretending that you do.

2
Bob Kemp - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Inside we have no control over who comes in from EU. It’s Tony  Benn’s point that sovereignty on these fundamental decisions should lie with domestic parliaments. 

We have always had control. We just haven't chosen to use it. 

"we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/britain-take-back-control-immigration-eu-directive-brexit

It would cost a few quid to administer of course, but it would be a damn sight cheaper than Brexit. 

 

1
krikoman - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Trangia:

> The trouble with this is how can we vote NOW for or against a people's vote if we don't know what the wording of a second such referendum is going to be?

I don't understand what you're getting at, surly it's simply enough?

We could be given another vote, when we're clearer about what Brexit is going to mean and what benefits / costs we're likely to incur.

Either you'd like a vote after they've got some idea of the details of our Brexit, or you don't. It doesn't have to change anything, it's simply voting on what information we have, rather than £350m a week for the NHS, bullshit, most people were fed at the time.

It might well be difficult and make no difference, especially since there are people who spout stuff like this, "I don't even know what Airbus is, it won't make any difference to me anyway, we always fly with Ryan air"!!

 

Pan Ron - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I do wonder what the Guardian's reaction would have been if repatriations were enacted though. 

I can just see the frenzied headlines reporting "Families Torn Apart", and "Heartless Immigration Officers on May's Orders" deporting "Victimized Roma Forced Home".  Probably leading to some climb-down and solemn declaration of lessons learnt, perhaps a minister or two shuffled around.  And on to the next outrage... 

3
krikoman - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I think 17 million had a clear idea. And their views have changed not one jit despite the hysterical Jeremiahs predicting the end of days. 


You really think 17m people knew what they were voting for?

Besides that, if they all know what they want and haven't changed their mind, the result will be the same, so what's to fear?

RomTheBear on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to BnB:

> I think the Guardian article has misrepresented the idea. The proposition goes that restricting single market access to goods only will solve the Irish problem

It doesn't solve the Irish problem. The only thing that would avoid a hard border is the single market or a border in the Irish Sea. I suspect we will have a hard border or the latter, or a mix of the two.

> The UK would be able to arrange trade deals for services worldwide and assert sovereignty in law-making.

Let's have a good laugh at this one. There are no tariffs barriers on services. Only regulatory barriers and barriers to movement of persons. The only way to break regulatory barriers down is by regulatory alignment. Given that I don't see the UK aligning regulations with the US, or China and India, which are all mutually exclusive anyway (aligning with any of these markets would shut you out of any of the others), the only logical outcome, of course, is that we'll align with the EU - and rely on the EU's power to influence regulation around the world, as it does now. 

To sum it up : we would end up with a deal on customs that is to our disadvantage, whilst losing decision making power and influence on NTBs.

Well done there ;-)

 

Post edited at 22:28
thomasadixon - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

My post to Rom kind of touches on this - I just don't see how it can work.  The single market operates by allowing EU law to be the umpire wherever it sees a threat to the market.  That leaves us subject to EU law - and if the EU gets to decide where it's allowed to intervene (which is the only way it can work) then we're a legal system subject to another, our Parliament can't be sovereign.

This is markedly different to some sort of arbitration system and an agreement to follow similar laws in certain areas.  If we do that then we get to decide what divergence is okay.

3
thomasadixon - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> We have always had control. We just haven't chosen to use it. 

> "we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves."

It's maddening this argument.  It does not allow us to prevent people from coming in and working in a job, EU workers must be treated the same as UK workers.  The definition of a worker is defined by EU law, not UK law, the rules that define when people can be deported are EU law.  In what way does that equal the UK having control?

1
Bob Kemp - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

The Guardian’s imagined response isn’t relevant. Start another thread for discussion of your Guardian stereotype if you like. 

1
krikoman - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It's maddening this argument.  It does not allow us to prevent people from coming in and working in a job, EU workers must be treated the same as UK workers.  The definition of a worker is defined by EU law, not UK law, the rules that define when people can be deported are EU law.  In what way does that equal the UK having control?


We do, at least at the moment, have an influence on EU law. So it's not like we're locked out and have to go along with what "they" tell us we have to do is it?

If we come that's precisely where we do end up, at the mercy of "their" laws when it comes to trade and exports.

The problem I have with you assessment, is what laws do you think we'd be better without? Since most of the EU laws have been beneficial for either workers rights or general safety or people or the environment, which one's are so bad, we wouldn't either have to copy or be in a less beneficial environment?

The up and coming EU law regarding offshore investments and some clarity of such, isn't aimed against the bloke in the street, it's about catching tax dodging bastards, who are hiding their wealth and investments, without the EU do you think we'll be passing the same law?

1
mudmonkey - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> We have always had control. We just haven't chosen to use it. 

> "we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves."

> It would cost a few quid to administer of course, but it would be a damn sight cheaper than Brexit. 

You can't though really, can you? Any party/government who attempted to do so would have everyone screaming at them, calling then Nazis, racists, mad xenophobes, little Englanders, don't like brown people etc. Business figures would be unanimous in lining up to forecast immediate economic collapse as they lost their supply of cheap, exploitative labour.

The complete impossibility of any sensible debate on immigration was a significant factor in the Brexit vote.

Post edited at 15:01
3
Bob Hughes - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The single market operates by allowing EU law to be the umpire wherever it sees a threat to the market.  That leaves us subject to EU law - and if the EU gets to decide where it's allowed to intervene (which is the only way it can work) then we're a legal system subject to another, our Parliament can't be sovereign.

That's not how it works in the cases of the association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova: 

"The three countries only have improved access to those sectors where their laws are aligned (‘approximated’) to European ones. If a dispute arises relating to regulatory approximation or to an interpretation of EU law, the arbitration panel that oversees the agreement must request a ruling from the European Court of Justice, whose verdicts are legally binding (known as a ‘preliminary reference’). Other than on such issues, the arbitrators oversee the agreement without any ECJ involvement."

> This is markedly different to some sort of arbitration system and an agreement to follow similar laws in certain areas.  If we do that then we get to decide what divergence is okay.

It may be that the use of the term "single market for goods" is a bit sloppy. The point is, we would agree on both tariffs and regulatory alignment on certain sectors (goods sectors). ECJ would still have a role to play but only in those sectors where we have agreed on regulatory alignment. 

Edit to include link to above quote: https://www.cer.eu/insights/ukraine-model-brexit-dissociation-just-association

Post edited at 15:02
George Ormerod - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I think 17 million had a clear idea. And their views have changed not one jit despite the hysterical Jeremiahs predicting the end of days. 

Did they?  Numerous Brexiters said that we'd remain in the single market, or get seamless access access to it - including Farage and Aaron Banks ( http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2017/01/theresa-may-just-told-enormous-lie.htm ).  Did 17 million people ignore that?

It's interesting that the hysterical Jeremiahs include lefty scum like the FT, Economist, CBI, Society of Motor Manufacturers, BMW, Airbus......

Oh, and the government says that the deal with the EU will deliver "exactly the same benefits as membership of the EU", and the only way to do that is remain in the customs union and the single market. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.