Laura Duckett
FREEDOM of movement ‘will not continue as we know it’ post Brexit.
The Prime Minister has insisted that the free movement of people from the EU into Britain will end in 2019.
It contradicts suggestions from Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond that the current rules in place could continue for a transitional period after the UK leaves the European Union.
Last Friday, Hammond that there should be no ‘cliff edge’ for immigration when Britain leaves the EU in 2019.
He implied that current immigration rules should remain in place during any transitional period after Brexit, which could last up to three years.
“At the present time, we have a high level of dependence on foreign workers in the UK.
“Nobody wants us to go over a cliff edge in March 2019 where suddenly our health services are unable to cope, social care is unable to deliver,” he told the press.
Disagreements within the conservative party are sparking disapproval from opposing MPs.
“The government is in total disarray. Unless the cabinet can agree on a position how can it possibly negotiate Brexit on behalf of Britain with the EU?” Tom Brake MP said.
The government has not specified what the arrangement will entail, although MPs have brushed off the idea of a Norwegian-style arrangement.
If the UK government wants a transitional arrangement which includes access to the single market and the customs union, the EU27 will have to agree to it first and they will make FoM a condition of any deal. The government are deluded if they think they are running the show and have a choice, the EU27 hold all the cards and they will decide.
Spot on
You tend to forget what Brexit means, the UK could just walk away, so basically the EU does not hold the upper hand. Jane G, do you really wish to be under the control of Brussels. Have you really studied what their intentions are. The UK will be able to trade worldwide once they have left the EU and if the EU wishes to have free trade agreements, (Which will happen) with the UK the door will be open under civilized arrangements but not under threats. Could you please explain why all these threats, A50 does not cover these conditions. It merely states that a country can leave the EU with a two year period for negotiations, (if they wish) not threats. Britain has well paid it’s dues over the many years whereas other countries have not, bear that in mind. It amazes me when the other side state that the UK is not prepared, they are prepared, they have stated their case for leaving, it’s the other side that is not prepared in accepting those reasons and so they belittle themselves by threats.
The Norwegian agreement isn`t that bad if we wish to move freely and trade freely within EU, yet still have control in certain areas in our country. It is expensive, as EU is not giving anything for free, but no country can stand alone and set their own rules without compromise, at least not in this part of the world.
Christine, I agree that the Norway option is the best and probably the only way forward and there is growing concensus among MPs from all political parties – it is seen as a good compromise. The hope is that a ‘temporary’ Norway arrangement would become permanent post 2022. The virtues of the Norway option were hailed by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign but they have since moved the goal posts.
The question is will EEA members accept the UK? Dumping the UK into the EEA would probably work for the EU27 but as always, it has to be agreed by all parties first.
Jane, if the UK adopts the Norwegian solution, then the UK has also to become a member of the Schengen treaty, like Norway does. I understand Theresa May that in any case she wants to prevent exactly that to happen.
Wolfgang, personally I don’t have a problem with being part of Schengen but I read that EEA membership does not mean having to be part of it. Of course this might have changed so I stand to be corrected!
As you can see, the UK did not do its homework on the mechanics of leaving the EU.
Wolfgang. Could you explain the difference between the Norwegian solution and what the British public voted for regarding Brexit, I can. Vast difference don’t you think.
EU REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
Despite, some greater flexibility over agriculture, fisheries and external trade, if the UK were to opt for a Norwegian-style relationship it would still be bound by great swathes of the EU regulation that rankles with businesses and the general public, but – and this is the crucial point – without any vote on it. We noted in our Brexit study that if the UK were to ‘become like Norway’ by joining EEA, 93 out of the 100 costliest EU-derived regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4bn per year (94.3% of the total cost). This is because many EU policy areas would continue to apply to the UK including financial services, social and employments laws, energy and climate change policies, and this is where the bulk of the regulatory cost stems from.
While the EEA Agreement includes provisions for the non-EU members to be consulted on new legislation, the EEA states have:
No veto in the European Council
No votes in the Council of Ministers – where national governments vote on EU legislation
No MEPs or votes in the European Parliament
No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff
No judges or staff at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Norway can theoretically refuse to implement EU legislation, but it has never used this power. Whilst it is a legitimate tool, it has major drawbacks limiting its practical effectiveness. Norway’s ‘right of veto’ does not stop the EU enacting legislation and, if it relates to product standards or financial regulations, for example, Norway cannot use the old ones to continue to export to the EU and can therefore find itself locked out of the Single Market in the areas affected.
Personally I’m sick to death of unelected Eurocrats dictating to the UK. It’s about time they woke up and realized the UK is not the only nation to think this whatever their ploitciacians think. The politicians are there to obey the people, not visa-vera. At the end of the day, the UK holds the trump card – we just walk away and the EU looses a good trading partner (the UK has the rest otf the World to trade with once the Eurocrats cease to bar us from doing so). The soon we’re out of it the better!
Let me enlighten you… 50% of british exports go to the EU. So it is not the UK who has the best cards at all. Not to mention that the rest of the world does not seem too interested in doing business with the UK either, ie Japan, Australia, India, Mercosur and the list goes on and on
Camerachap, may I assume you wanted to express: the UK holds the Trump card, with uppercase “T”? Right?
Camerachap I made a similar comment but somehow it was not printed. Perhaps it was due to having a go at the remainders.
What do you mean by “unelected Eurocrats” Mr. Chap? There are seventy two British members of the European Parliament, elected and put in place by us to vote for or against any proposals put in front of them.
This is a common piece of ignorance, spouted by Brexiteers to prop up their madness.
See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths.html for more EU myths.
Blue-eyes the 2nd. Japan wants to hold early free trade talks with Britain and so does all the other countries you mention. There is already a long list of countries waiting to sign for free trade agreements including America which has placed the UK top of the list with a massive trade agreement. BTW No.2 the UK is the bloc’s biggest trading country, 53% of the EU’s trade is with the UK alone which will be lost when it leaves the clutches of the EU whereas the UK will be in a position to trade worldwide. DEUTSCHE Bank has reaffirmed its commitment to the city of London by signing a 25-year lease for its new London headquarters, despite threats to move some staff to Frankfurt after Brexit. (notice, some staff).
Perhaps No.2 you should also read a leaked paper sent to Macron.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/835161/Macron-leaks-Brexit-Britain-France-most-important-EU-military-ally
Blue-eyes No. 2. May I also point out that the UK is a fully paid member of NATO not like some of your beloved other EU members. Not only that they are the strongest military force in Europe and is one of the five permanent members of the security council. Not Germany or the European Union or the rest of the 26 other EU members. The odd one in that clutch is France, (through the generosity of Churchill) don’t know why, they capitulated twice. Wake up Blue-eyes.
Jane G please could you tell us your full name. You constantly write anti-British statements. I believe the authorities in the UK need to be informed, or at least the newspapers – just so people know who you are.
Clown.
Dimwit. The anti-British are the Brexiteers who landed us in this mess.
Nice research Fred. All salivating Brexiteers should be made to click on that link, eyes propped open with matchsticks, held in a full nelson and forced to read the whole thing.
Would enlightenment follow? Debatable, we’re talking of blinkered barmpots here.