[Ter]

If the US can have close trade and other ties with Canada without demanding that Canada submit to US courts, dynamically align its regulations or dictate its tax policy, I should think the EU can man up and manage the same.

Very true. Boris Johnson should read this.
It is preposterous to demand that the UK submit to EU courts or sacrifice its fish wealth in order to trade with the EU.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

EU is becoming increasingly heavy handed, if not outright clumsy, in its dealings with what JohnRawls calls its "backyard".

But what's most grating is the cheering and flag waving by people who recoil and warn of grave danger when the same kind of behaviour is exhibited with respect to their own countries. Can't help but think that these people would have been nationalists in the past, but current sensibilities don't allow them to express these instincts anymore. The EU provides a safe and guilt-free outlet for them.

Edit: Should add that I'm not referring to JohnRawls in the above description, but I'm thinking of the behaviour of many Remainers over the last three years.

[JohnRawls]

It's quite telling that leaving the EU is apparently equivalent to ruining its backyard if not a direct challenge and wanting a mutually beneficial trade deal is milking the EU. Just how insecure are you guys?

If the US can have close trade and other ties with Canada without demanding that Canada submit to US courts, dynamically align its regulations or dictate its tax policy, I should think the EU can man up and manage the same. After all, it's the US which is the imperialist bully, while the EU is a benign block whose only objective is peaceful cooperation and prosperity of Europeans.

Canada is full in line with US standards. Very rarely they deviate from each other due to proximity and trade importance. That was idea for the EU. Same goes for Mexico to a large degree. Also i don't remember Canada pronouncing anything of the sort to milk the US for benefits while ignoring all obligations it has to the US.

The courts thing is frankly a very small part of it. I trust the UK courts actually a lot more than perhaps any other court due to their long history of intermidiation, problem solving and mitigation/litigation. I don't know why that bothers you so much, if it was just about the courts then this would have been resolved by now since most people in the EU don't care about them that much. The EU might as well be under UK courts as long as they are fair/just and nobody would really care. (Both politicians and people)

[Beren]

I wonder if the recent UK government is also so keen on a US-Canada kind of relationship with the EU as Kaisy is. I'd bet they would rather like to have such a relationship with the US while having CETA+ with the EU.

[JohnRawls]

I wonder if the recent UK government is also so keen on a US-Canada kind of relationship with the EU as Kaisy is. I'd bet they would rather like to have such a relationship with the US while having CETA+ with the EU.

Pretty much so i don't see why we shouldn't treat them differently as before. UK doesn't view Europe anymore as a legitimate partner and competitor. It is something akin of US-China relationship right now. Basically UK thinks that we were screwing it over when we weren't. That is a baffling part. UK has/had the best deal out of any countries in the EU and they blew it. Everything else they signed up for themselves. (Polish immigrants/East European immigrants which Blair had no problems with while Germany put a delay is but one of the examples)

[fokker]

Pretty much so i don't see why we shouldn't treat them differently as before. UK doesn't view Europe anymore as a legitimate partner and competitor. It is something akin of US-China relationship right now. Basically UK thinks that we were screwing it over when we weren't. That is a baffling part. UK has/had the best deal out of any countries in the EU and they blew it. Everything else they signed up for themselves. (Polish immigrants/East European immigrants which Blair had no problems with while Germany put a delay is but one of the examples)

I think the right to move anywhere within the EU to work will need to be restricted somewhat. It is not sustainable in the long term and leads to racism, anti-EU sentiments, rise of far right parties. Countries need to have right to check if 1.) people have a clear criminal record in EU 2.) speak the host country language 3.) have funds to survive without a job for a few months. 4.) social security being available to them only after some period and depending on where kids are living 5.) limits be in place to avoid 2 million cheap EU workers flooding a single English speaking EU member. Limits should be reasonable and not ridiculously low, linked to unemployment rate.

Permission to work in foreign EU countries should be "granted" in a fast tracked process lasting max a month in much more simple process than traditional visa. Worker would have to pay for administrative costs of this process.

If this change is implemented, it will help to stabilize the EU.

[JohnRawls]

I think the right to move anywhere within the EU to work will need to be restricted somewhat. It is not sustainable in the long term and leads to racism, anti-EU sentiments, rise of far right parties. Countries need to have right to check if 1.) people have a clear criminal record in EU 2.) speak the host country language 3.) have funds to survive without a job for a few months. 4.) social security being available to them only after some period and depending on where kids are living 5.) limits be in place to avoid 2 million cheap EU workers flooding a single English speaking EU member. Limits should be reasonable and not ridiculously low, linked to unemployment rate.

Permission to work in foreign EU countries should be "granted" in a fast tracked process lasting max a month in much more simple process than traditional visa. Worker would have to pay for administrative costs of this process.

If this change is implemented, it will help to stabilize the EU.

EU movement doesn't need to change for the sole fact that this is how a single market works. Free movement of services and goods need this to a large degree. Also the waves of immigration are always different because right now eastern Europe is fine compared to what it was 15 years ago for example. Our unemployment is pretty low (Below 5%) While the main immigration is happening out of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal due to their high unemployment. Its complicated.

[JohnRawls]

So Uh, people who support Johnson. What do you think about the PM trying to undermine and basically taking over the Treasury while integrating it in to his own office it seems. Along with other ministerial positions like Northern Ireland Minister for example? Is it relevant that those posts loose their independence and any checks and balances functions that they might have otherwise provided?

[Potemkin]

So Uh, people who support Johnson. What do you think about the PM trying to undermine and basically taking over the Treasury while integrating it in to his own office it seems. Along with other ministerial positions like Northern Ireland Minister for example? Is it relevant that those posts loose their independence and any checks and balances functions that they might have otherwise provided?

Meh, I'm still waiting for him to drop the pretense and start calling himself 'Lord Protector'. Lol.

[JohnRawls]

Meh, I'm still waiting for him to drop the pretense and start calling himself 'Lord Protector'. Lol.

If he does that then he needs to have an obligatory trial for the Queen where his appointed ignores any legal arguments, dismisses the Queen from her own trial for being in contempt of the court, ignores very reasonable requests for a settlement and then finally executes her.

[Potemkin]

If he does that then he needs to have an obligatory trial for the Queen where his appointed ignores any legal arguments, dismisses the Queen from her own trial for being in contempt of the court, ignores very reasonable requests for a settlement and then finally executes her.

Would you put any of that past BoJo?

[Beren]

Meh, I'm still waiting for him to drop the pretense and start calling himself 'Lord Protector'. Lol.

Maybe the Sussexes do the absolutely right thing quitting and leaving to Canada and become ordinary haute bourgeoisie in a not so foreign country.

[Potemkin]

Maybe the Sussexes do the absolutely right thing quitting and leaving to Canada and become ordinary haute bourgeoisie in a not so foreign country.

That's clearly what Meghan wants, and she's dragging Harry along for the ride. Lol.

[Beren]

That's clearly what Meghan wants, and she's dragging Harry along for the ride. Lol.

But she clearly loves Harry rather than being a royal at least, and Harry also doesn't seem so much keen on it. I guess he'd prefer neither his father nor his brother being his master.

[Rich]

So Uh, people who support Johnson. What do you think about the PM trying to undermine and basically taking over the Treasury while integrating it in to his own office it seems. Along with other ministerial positions like Northern Ireland Minister for example? Is it relevant that those posts loose their independence and any checks and balances functions that they might have otherwise provided?

Proportional representation and fixed short term parliaments along with no executive Presidencies, which we don't have, are the way to best maximise checks and balances and the responsiveness of government to the will of the people. Oh and of course no oath of allegiance. For those who don't fully support all these measures, I propose a policy of zero tolerance for their whinings.

I can't make Britain in to a monarchy. However if a monarchist tells me that they have been a victim of discrimination, abuse, bigotry, injustice, inequality, disadvantage or abuse of power, I can say, that brings me great joy to hear it. The same goes supporters of the two party system, when their party is on the losing end of abuse of power, or on the losing end of the arbitrary, and frequently unpredicted outcomes that such electoral systems inevitably produce, I take pleasure in it.

So for example I remember before the 2015 election, Dianne Abbot taking smug, satisfaction that she thought that UKIP were going to split the right wing vote and give Labour an overall majority. How nice then to see Boris getting an overall majority and trashing the hope and dreams of Dianne and her ilk. I particularly dislike Abbot as she's one of those leftie hypocrites that opposes Grammar schools but sent her kids to private schools.

[Rugoz]

I think the right to move anywhere within the EU to work will need to be restricted somewhat. It is not sustainable in the long term and leads to racism, anti-EU sentiments, rise of far right parties. Countries need to have right to check if 1.) people have a clear criminal record in EU 2.) speak the host country language 3.) have funds to survive without a job for a few months. 4.) social security being available to them only after some period and depending on where kids are living 5.) limits be in place to avoid 2 million cheap EU workers flooding a single English speaking EU member. Limits should be reasonable and not ridiculously low, linked to unemployment rate.

Permission to work in foreign EU countries should be "granted" in a fast tracked process lasting max a month in much more simple process than traditional visa. Worker would have to pay for administrative costs of this process.

If this change is implemented, it will help to stabilize the EU.

Movement is only free if you have work, otherwise there are restrictions. Ironically free movement led to a strengthening of unions in my country, to counter wage dumping. Also a way to limit immigration of course. Wage differences in Europe are huge.

EU movement doesn't need to change for the sole fact that this is how a single market works. Free movement of services and goods need this to a large degree.

In the EU anyone who finds work in another country can go there, that's not required for trade of services or goods.

[B0ycey]

In the EU anyone who finds work in another country can go there, that's not required for trade of services or goods.

During the Brexit campaign I would say the migrant crisis was perhaps a bigger factor than free movement.

Although what I find strange is that if work is another country what do people expect? The UK has low unemployment. Businesses either hire the people they need or they move out. Either way jobs were never stolen. They just were unpopular with UK residents and EU migrants took the opportunity that was given as someone has to do the work. Had we not been in the EU these jobs would most likely have gone to the Commonwealth.

Nonetheless perhaps the EU might want to restrict certain rights to prevent population buIld up in the future. Restricting work shouldn't be one of them but at the same time what use are benefit claimants, homelessness or criminal gangs to a nation that has no means to do anything about them? These of course are minor concerns within the bigger picture as the vast majority of migrants do want to work. But they were concerns that Cameron went to Brussels for originally and perhaps had he got a little bit more the result might have been different. Despite what people might think the UK isn't against migration. The polls suggest they are for better controls. That is they know we need migration for skills we lack.

[JohnRawls]

Movement is only free if you have work, otherwise there are restrictions. Ironically free movement led to a strengthening of unions in my country, to counter wage dumping. Also a way to limit immigration of course. Wage differences in Europe are huge.



In the EU anyone who finds work in another country can go there, that's not required for trade of services or goods.

Wut? The people are not complaining about tourists but the job migration that the EU allows. I do not understand your argument Rugoz. Sure, it is a part of it and i do agree that if we remove the free movement in general and allow it when you have work needs/job needs then it will also be fine and along the lines of EU market but the problem with that is that it fixes nothing for the people who don't like it in the first place. You are basically make life horrible for the tourist industry for no reason while not changing anything.

[Ter]

You are basically make life horrible for the tourist industry for no reason while not changing anything.

Really? How so ? Tourists get an entry permit/visa with a month's validity, free of charge, on arrival, no problem.
Thailand and many other countries do that, to the tourist's satisfaction.

[JohnRawls]

Really? How so ? Tourists get an entry permit/visa with a month's validity, free of charge, on arrival, no problem.
Thailand and many other countries do that, to the tourist's satisfaction.

I mean when we speak about inter EU tourism. One thing is to get a permit/visa, of course it is a workable solution what most countries use. The problem is that it is a lot shittier compared to anyone in the EU just being able to buy and go without worrying about anything. About filling in papers of any kind and paying any government tolls. It makes it so much simpler and kills tons of red tape for tourism at the least. Irrelevant of somebody being anti or pro free movement, this is a pretty good thing for tourism and without it, they will feel pain to a degree.