Unintended consequences of brexit

I think that was an overall analysis. In certain parts of the country immigration was high on the list of concerns, mainly cities. Right up to the bitter end of the campaign I was very torn as to which way to go, to the point that I wasn't going to vote as I simply didn't know. In the end I felt it was my civic duty to vote and leave won by a narrow margin. From what I've seen and heard since, I know beyond a shadow of doubt that long term I've done the right thing!

jura 2

Over the past 2 years I have posted re Switzerland EU/EEA/EFTA and Switzerland has been raised' once again'.

Has there been any change to correct this post made some while ago?

POGS Sun 17-Dec-17 11:32:16
jura2

" Even in Switzerland- where the systems is based on public Referedums which are binding- the VERY close result in feb 2014 on the limits to immigration - has resulted in such catastrophic effects on Switzerland in so many ways- that the GVT has not yet implemented it - and is trying to find a way, nearly 3 years later- to implement it in a limited form that will reduce the negative effects - on industry, financial services, massive research projects and institutions, security, Universities, development, etc, etc. "

This has been a point raised on many Brexit threads and we both know the answer why the Swiss Government has not implemented the Referendum result in 2014 to limit immigration .

The EU 'told' the Swiss Government you have to accept the 4 Freedoms/ 4 Pillars OR ELSE! . So it did not matter a jot what the people of Switzerland (plebiscite) voted for in the referendum as a Non EU Member but a member of EFTA Switzerland has to do as the EU Commission/Parliament tells it to..

Switzerland’s economic and trading relations with the EU are governed by a web of more than 120 bilateral treaties that are all linked by a “guillotine clause” – if one is breached, they all collapse.

Like the UK Switzerland was told in no uncertain terms by the EU , ' You will not be able to 'CHERRY PICK' . Hence Switzerland was suspended from full membership of the ERASMUS programme etc. etc. after your referendum to reduce EU immigration.

I believe however Switzerland and the EU are getting closer of late and you have come to some arrangement on the Free Movement situation but am I correct in thinking it needs ratifying?

www.thelocal.ch/20170407/eu-swiss-relations-officially-back-on-track-after-immigration-squabble

At the end of the day what is an inevitable fact no European Country either in the EU/EFTA/EEA will be able to have the people of their country decide what to do (plebiscite) the European Union Commission and Parliament is the source of power and you Remain or Leave .

What a state of affairs POGs!! A closed shop in all but name! I think it was you who said that after years in the EU our politicians appear to have forgotten how to govern on their own? This is one very worrying factor that has become glaringly obvious in the past months. Let's hope its a retrievable blip!!

How pompous MaizieD!

MaizieD. Immigration as you can see from this cut and paste was merely one issue in the David Cameron attempt to modify the control of the EU on the UK. The EU, as other posters have said clearly, think they have the final say and chose to ignore the UK. Hence Brexit.

"In his January 2013 Bloomberg Speech, David Cameron announced he would seek a “new settlement” for Britain in Europe, promising to win a host of concessions from Brussels that would convince Britons to remain in a newly-invigorated Europe.
More than three years later, on February 20 2016, Mr Cameron finalised that deal with 27 other European leaders.
Here we analyse line by line, what Mr Cameron originally promised…and what he actually got.

Migration and benefits
Pledge
"We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: This was Cameron's trophy achievement. It consists of a mechanism to “limit the access of union workers newly entering its labour market to in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment” if the UK, or any other member state, can show that EU migrants are “putting an excessive pressure on the proper functioning of its public services”.
No details are provided on what “excessive pressure” means, but a note on the mechanism says it will be tabled on the understanding that "it can and will be used" by the UK and the UK will do so "in full expectation of obtaining approval". However the control of the brake appears to remain firmly in the hands of the Commission who must be "notified" by any member state that they believe they are eligible to use it.
The text also adds an important caveat that the “limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion” to be followed by “gradually increasing access to such benefits” the longer that an EU worker stays in the host member state’s labour market.
Final deal: All of the above, including a declaration that the four-year brake will be available to Britain for “a period of 7 years”. This is a ‘win’ for Cameron, although he had reportedly demanded up to 13 years availability.
On the negative side, Mr Cameron’s negotiators were unable to remove the “tapering mechanism” which will see EU migrants start to receive benefits when they start to contribute to the system – probably after their first year of work.
Critics will point out that deal only fully denies in-work benefits for one year, not four. There is also no mention of the benefits changes being protected by treaty change, which some critics have warned could leave them vulnerable to challenge in the European Courts.

Euro safeguards
Pledge
A mechanism to ensure that “Britain can't be discriminated against because it's not part of the euro, can't pick up the bill for eurozone bail-outs, crucially can’t have imposed on it changes the eurozone want to make without our consent.” - George Osborne, the Chancellor, to BBC Newsnight January 14 2016
What he got
Draft deal: A pledge that the UK will not be on the hook for future bail-outs of eurozone states - specifically, crisis measures to shore up the euro area "will not entail budgetary responsibility for member states whose currency is not the euro”. The is also a promise of “reimbursement” if a eurozone state rescue-measure calls on general EU funds. (p4 of draft agreement)
A statement noting that any member state, including the UK, can demand that any issue pertaining to the eurozone may be discussed in the European Council, which means all 28 member states. However the clause notes that such a request cannot “amount to allowing one or more member states to veto the effective management of the banking union or the future integration of the euro area” which begs the question over how 'safe' Mr Osborne's safeguard really makes non-eurozone states.
A mechanism whereby an unspecified number of non-euro states can “indicate their reasoned opposition” to a measure being proposed by the eurozone states, and an undertaking that the Council “shall discuss the issue”. The council also pledges to “do all in its power” to engineer a “satisfactory solution” to address the concerns and seek to facilitate “a wider basis of agreement in the Council”. [Draft statement on section A].
Crucially however the text gives no indication of what will happen if such an agreement cannot be reached.

Final deal: A significant ‘win’ for Mr Cameron here, after leaders agreed that only “one” non-Euro state can invoke the safeguards mechanism which will force a review of legislation by the European Council.
Although in practice a British Prime Minister has usually had this power, if he protests loudly enough – as Mr Cameron did last year over UK involvement in the bailout of Greece – it is still a talismanic ‘win’ that campaigners will be able to point to when persuading voters that the UK will not be held to ransom by the in-built majority of Eurozone states.
There is also new language referring to a commitment to “preserve the level-playing field” designed to allay French fears that the UK was seeking carve-outs for the City that would enable it to avoid element of European banking regulation to give a competitive advantage to UK-based financial institution. The devil will be in the detail here.
Also, in another victory for Mr Cameron, the changes will also be incorporated into the Treaties when they are next opened, guaranteeing the safeguards in perpetuity.

Working Time Directive - EU regulations
Pledge
“For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.
“In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.” - David Cameron in his January 2013 Bloomberg speech
What he got
Draft deal: Nothing. Mr Cameron decided last August not to demand a full exclusion for the UK from EU employment directives after Labour and the trades unions made clear they would not support an EU renegotiation that included opting out of the Working Time Directive.
Final Deal: Still nothing.

Budgets and EU waste
Pledge
“Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked? - David Cameron in his January 2013 Bloomberg speech
What he got
Draft text: A pledge by the European Commission to continue its current work cutting red tape. Specifically “continue its efforts to make EU law simpler and to reduce regulatory burden for EU business operators...by applying the 2015 Better Regulation Agenda, including in particular the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). Cutting red tape for entrepreneurship, in particular small and medium size enterprises, remains an overarching goal for all of us in delivering growth and jobs.” (Draft declaration on subsidiarity implementation mechanism)
Final deal: Unchanged

Child benefit
Pledge
"If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: An agreement to pay child benefits at local rates, specifically “an option to index such benefits to the standard of living in the Member State where the child resides” (p15 of draft agreement)
Final Deal: This was one of the hardest-fought parts of the negotiation is where Mr Cameron appears to have given the most ground in order to win his headline “seven years” deal on his so-called “benefits brake.
The text now says that indexation of child benefit should “only apply to new claims” when UK negotiators had wanted all EU migrant children receiving child benefit in their home countries to go onto the new rates immediately.
Instead, there will now be a four-year transition period with the new, lower rates not kicking in until January 1 2020. While Downing Street will claim this as a victory, critics will point out this is a very long way from the manifesto pledge.

Sham marriages
Pledge
"A continued crackdown on “illegal working and sham marriages” - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: The Commission will adopt a proposal to exclude from the scope of free movement rights, “third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a member state before marrying a union citizen or who marry a union citizen only after the union citizen has established residence in the host Member State”.
Final Deal: Unchanged.

Red card for national parliaments
Pledge
"We want national parliaments to be able to work together to block unwanted European legislation." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: A win. An agreement that if, proportionately speaking, 55 per cent of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation “within 12 weeks” the Council Presidency will hold a “comprehensive discussion” on the objections raised and “discontinue the consideration of the draft legislative... unless the draft is amended to accommodate the concerns expressed in the reasoned opinions”. (p13 of draft agreement).
It remains far from clear that the current European Commission which has made a point of cutting red tape would ever table a measure that would garner such high level of objections. Critics will argue this is a 'red card' that, in practice, will never be shown.
Final Deal: Unchanged.

Ever closer union
Pledge
“We want an end to our commitment to an ‘ever closer union’, as enshrined in the treaty to which every EU country has to sign up." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: A re-statement of a EU heads of government decision from 2014 that has already clarified that the phrase “ever closer union” does “not compel all member states to aim for a common destination". The Tusk text says (p10) specifically: “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.” It also promises to incorporate this in the EU treaties next time they are opened.

Final Deal: A win for Mr Cameron who has convinced EU leader that the EU treaties, when they are next opened, will include a new reference to make it clear that the words “ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”.
This clearly meets the manifesto commitment, however in a sop to Europe’s federalists like Belgium early drafts suggesting this exemption might apply more broadly – for example to countries like Poland and Hungary who have no intention of joining the Euro any time soon - were removed. This is a blow to Mr Cameron’s calls for the EU to accept the need for a looser, more flexible ‘live and let live’ Europe.

Security
Pledge
"To seek increased powers to bolster UK defences to "stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human rights arguments to prevent deportation." - Conservative Party Manifesto 2015
What he got
Draft text: A win. Specifically an agreement for the UK to take "necessary restrictive measures" against individuals deemed to represent "a genuine and serious threat" to public safety, even if they do not pose an "imminent" threat to security. Taking a suspect's "past conduct" into account could be sufficient grounds to act.
Final Deal: Unchanged

Multi-currency union
Pledge
That the EU should formally recognise that it is a "multi-currency union" and that all members must not inevitably join the euro.
What he got
Draft text: An apparent recognition, in writing, that while the union's objective is to establish "an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro" it is also stated that "not all member states have the euro as their currency". (Draft agreement, p.2) Downing Street is claiming this as a victory for its vision of a multi-speed, multi-direction Europe.
Final Deal: This language is unchanged, but the deal text as a whole gives less credence to Mr Cameron’s desire for a “live and let live” Europe than Britain would have liked."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked-for-and-what-he-actually-got/

MaizieD I don't post for other leave voters. I post in response to your comments, or comments of other posters. Be they leave or remain.

Well I don’t know about anyone else but I lose the will to live with such long posts - could we have a summary of what the actual point is Ally, in your own words?

Sorry maryeliza54 I just don't have the time today or the energy in this heat, to analyse it and summarize. You're just going to have to read it, if your that interested.

This is in response to a question by Maizie, so you might need to read the thread. Basically Maizie wanted to know what Cameron had negotiated with the EU, that created the the Brexit vote. The post is an analysis of those negotiated categories and the result's.

"result's".
Sorry Ally - you should have written "results".
.

This is in response to a question by Maizie, so you might need to read the thread. Basically Maizie wanted to know what Cameron had negotiated with the EU, that created the the Brexit vote.

I didn't want to know that at all. I already knew it.

I wanted to explore nellie's understanding of what DC had asked for and obtained in view of her assertion that the EU was 'rude and dismissive to D.C.'.

Whatever "side" you are on and whichever way you voted, we were all entitled to assume that if the vote was leave, then the split would be negotiated with professionalism, intelligence, a high level of negotiating skills and a modicum of plain nowse. Hmmm.

Indeed Lucky, indeed.

So I waited patiently, and can only come to the same conclusion as Maizie. That is not rude, just plain reality.

Fennel are you new to GN? We are generally too polite to pick a poster up on any spelling or mistakes in written posts.
Some posters are dyslexic and others write in haste, and in any case, we can all make mistakes.

Some posters will already know all that Ally has posted
(Cameron and the EU) but many will not, so find it interesting to read.

Fennel are you new to GN? We are generally too polite to pick a poster up on any spelling or mistakes in written posts.

On the other hand, we have absolutely no hesitation in telling them how we would like them to behave and telling them off robustly if we think they've been rude.

POGS, what happened with the referendum in CH to limit immigration, in Feb 14, has indeed put Switzerland in a very difficult situation. The real dangers of direct democracy, manipulated by rich populists. It was clear to all in GVT in the UK... and yet many went on to say clearly during the campaign ‘why not be like Switzerland’ and have our cake and eat it, as they are rich and doing very well. And they knew full well that meant paying large sums of money, abide by all EU rules for exports, and accept free movement. and they all knew the Swiss GVT eas in total panic about the massive effects on the Swiss economy, and the huge number of really innovative international research in CH. And yet they went on ‘let’s be like Switzerland’ ... And not only Farage, again and again, as well as many MPs and Leave campaigners.
The SVP/UDC has again managed to gather the number of signatures, and the list is being checked as we speak and will probably go through, forcing another referendum to force the GVT to implement the requested limits to immigration, which will lead to th reciprocal agreements to fail, with catastrophic consequences.
We Romands, French speakers, are like the Scots, a significant minority, and always pipped to the post in referendums. So personally, we have being going through Swissxit and Brexit.. for 4 years. And will be strongly affected on both sides.

oh forgot ... also meant that they have no say whatsoever in Brussels, have no influence at all. Switzerland chose to be in Schengen, btw.

From the Financial times 18 June.
for years Nick Clegg has been one of the most vociferous supporters of free movement
But now he's had a change of heart.
the belief that freedom of movement is an untouchable principle cannot remain unchallenged
Well done nick for admitting you were wrong. This last sentence wasn't said in a facetious way, it was genuinely meant.

lemon - just trying to be funny.
I've said in the past what I think of Ally's posts I (don't read them - too long for me, a gran of very little brain.)

I would like to think that we would all agree that Sir Richard Dearlove, ex head of MI6 knows a thing or two about our security.
Some of his comments Re Galileo.
Bullying Brussels is trying to suck us dry of our vital intelligence.
The prime minister should break away from the poisonous eu and build our own system to rival Europes Nav. system.
We don't need Galileo as we are trusted users of the American GPS system.
Not to give away the Crown Jewels ( Re our security intelligence)
We shouldn't touch Galileo with a barge pole because it would compromise our trustworthiness in the eyes of our allies, the US and Angloshere Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance

This last one ( five eyes) is the big boy of security systems. Angela Merkel asked if Germany could join and was politely told NO. Nice to know that we are trusted and Germany isn't.

Please carry on Fennel,those of us who prefer to read another’s opinion have given up due to the continual copy & pasting. I am perfectly capable of reading articles from many sources at my leisure,I find it frustrating & stifling to have almost every comment met with such articles .Pointing us in the direction of relevant links etc is more than adequate, Only of course IMHO

It would be so interesting for Lemongrove, Allyg and a few more, to take a DNA test.
Unfortunately a leading geneticist has just reported that they are not worth doing.
Commercial DNA tests that claim to tell people whether they are related to Richard III or descended from the Vikings are no more than "genetic astrology", scientists have warned.

There is no need anyway, as, unless someone can trace their Celtic ancestry back for hundreds of years, we know we are all a mixture.

by the way where I live in Germany there is an important Celtic grave. Of a higly intelligent man- a prince and very wealthy. So I suppose many Germans have Celtic DNA as have many EU citizens.

As to Switzerland you can go there anytime and nobody stops you to look at your ID card
I don't find the EU bullying- they have their rules, they are written down and backed up by law and the Leave Brits can't expect them to ignore them.

jura 2

Thank you for replying .

The point is whether a country is in the EU/EEA/EFTA or as Switzerland in none but is in the Single Market the EU is dominant and national sovereignty is a merely a term but not a working practice.

The 4 pillars/freedoms was from the start and remain to date non negotiable as far as the dominant partner, the EU , are concerned not only for the UK but those other European countries who have to abide by the politics and treaty's of the EU to trade. Political dogma will always trump trade and economics as far as the EU Commission is concerned.

That’s good to know Jalima .....and in that case I shan’t bother with the DNA testing ( it’s a wise child that knows it’s own father.)

they have their rules, they are written down and backed up by law and the Leave Brits can't expect them to ignore them.
It's just the rest of Europe which has ignored them for years - if we'd done the same probably no-one would have voted 'leave'.