Couple of sensible questions (IMHO)

nheather

How can you even suggest with a straight face that that is leaving?

chopples

Just seems madness to me.  Or is that we don’t give them enough credit and everything is going to plan.  Just force through this really poor idea of not really leaving the EU and then offering the people a vote

a) this really poor Common Market 2.0 idea
b) stay as we are

As a pro-Brexit voter, I’d rather stay as we are than have Common Market 2.0.

Mission accomplished!

Cheers,

Nigel

justincase

This is the difficulty mate, but I do believe common market 2.0 will allow us to form both our own agricultural and fisheries policy and will allow frictionless trade with the EU, therefore Northern Ireland hard border issue is solved. I also understand we will be able to make our own Laws outside of trade as jurisdiction would move from the ECJ to the EFTA court

This option was not at the forefront of the referendum campaign 2016, likewise a Disorderly Brexit was not either. Truth is it was something probably more in between, but if thats not achievable then what are we to do??

edit..... just came across this which goes into CM2.0 in some detail http://betterbrexit.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Common-Market-2.0.pdf

cheers

chopples

So our own agricultural and fisheries policy is basically all that will be achieved by the referendum and the last 3 years

So the uk wouldn't be able to make it's own laws then if i understand your post..

justincase

or you could just read the link I have provided?

Edit.. Appreciate you may not want to read it all so have clipped the relevant part

Cheers

                                                                       

chopples

I have now thanks but  from looking at your post i couldn't see that unless jurisdiction was within the UK court system how they could make their own laws..

nheather

Apols mate, I am on a phone typing is a pain as it is, appreciate I may have Been brief

Cheers

Rasczak

My concern is that CM2.0 does not address immigration.  Yes it has the EEFA special safeguarding clause but I don’t think that is worth the paper it is written on.  I think also when it was dicussed many months ago the EU had to agree that the threshold has been met.

The simple fact is that we are are already at the threshold.  Me must be because the government has been trying to bring nett migration down for year and have increased the controls for non-EU immigrants.

I know the farms, hotels and restaurants will say they there is not enough dirt cheap labour but I have always thought that a bit exploitative.  Pay a decent wage and there are plenty of enemployed that can do the work.

And actually whatever you may think I am all in favour of immigration.  We should be happy to accept immigrants to fill vacancies that we need, but that should be done fairly - it should apply equally to all countries and be controlled to suit the levels that are needed.  But it should be used to exploit the workforce as it is done today.

What we have today is very discriminitating.  No matter what anyone thinks we have a nett immigration problem.  So the government is doing all it can to reduce it which is to make it extremely difficult for any non-EU worker to come here, no matter how skilled.

Cheers,

Nigel

nheather

I think you need to consider whether your concerns about immigration are based on accurate facts or are really just unfounded concerns.  The latest ONS data instantly debunks a few of your underlying assumptions (non-EU immigration for example):
Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

With regards exploitative use of immigrants, we have a national minimum wage to ensure that is not the case. And the Government's attempts to introduce an immigration cap is/was nothing more than dog whistle politics. Our economy needs and thrives upon large scale immigration.

Rasczak

It is based on the fact that all parties agree that nett migration needs to be reduced.  Also that our population has reached the size that the country, its infrastructure and services can withstand.  That it is well recorded that we are seeing a brain-drain, people leaving are typically highly skilled, high experienced whilst those leaving are typically lower skilled.  The nett result is that the demand on public services is increase but the tax revenue to pay for them is reducing.

Understand your point about minimum wage but it can still be used divisively.  A made up example, not intended to scorn any type of job so please bear that in mind when reading.  Imagine a hotel, it has three roles, cleaner, waiter and receptionist traditionally with increasing levels of pay to reflect skills and responsibility.  Let’s say the traditional pay is £7.70, £8.70 and £9.70.  The hotel sees that potentially cheap immigrant labour is available and offers new starters £7.70 for waiter and receptionist roles.They accept and over time that becomes the going rate.  Now I think that the waiters and receptionists are being exploited but you don’t because they are on the protected minimum wage.

And this is happening.

Clearly it won’t happen in the NHS because they have fixed pay scales but imagine if hospitals started employing Eastern European nurses at £20k, or doctors at £30k. I think they woukd get takers but they would be being exploited.

Also that our immigration policy is disriminatory.  A highly skilled Jamcian nurse is turned away (despite the shortages) but an uneduated, unskilled, unemployed Italian is welcomed with open arms.

Cheers,

Nigel