[Rugoz]

3 months per year is not free movement. Registrations are not free movement.

It's how services across borders are possible, without free movement. That's the whole point.

Not that free movement within the EU is something absolute anyway, you need a job offer an register in the new country (obviously).

[noemon]

The difference between the UK and Switzerland is that Switzerland is in total regulatory alignment by copy/pasting EU product/services law in order to enjoy free product/services access in the EU market, the UK does not copy/paste EU law as a condition for that free access.

Free access in the product/service market can only be had if the 2 entities are in total regulatory alignment either via a customs union/single market or via the roundabout way the Swiss have created to trick their own minds.

The Swiss pretend that during this habitual copy/pasting, they can fool the EU by omission or edits but every time they tried to do as much, they failed. They have nominal "sovereignty" but not any real one as they follow EU law to the letter without having any say on it.

Of course, it is totally natural, logical and evident that free access between 2 entities is only possible if the 2 entities regulate that access on identical(not similar) terms.

It is evidently not possible for 2 entities to have free access between them while the one entity regulates those products on its own whims. It is not only impossible on the technical level but also on the theoretical level.

[Rugoz]

The difference between the UK and Switzerland is that Switzerland is in total regulatory alignment by copy/pasting EU product/services law in order to enjoy free product/services access in the EU market, the UK does not copy/paste EU law as a condition for that free access.

Free access in the product/service market can only be had if the 2 entities are in total regulatory alignment either via a customs union/single market or via the roundabout way the Swiss have created to trick their own minds.

The Swiss pretend that during this habitual copy/pasting, they can fool the EU by omission or edits but every time they tried to do as much, they failed. They have nominal "sovereignty" but not any real one as they follow EU law to the letter without having any say on it.

Of course, it is totally natural, logical and evident that free access between 2 entities is only possible if the 2 entities regulate that access on identical(not similar) terms.

It is evidently not possible for 2 entities to have free access between them while the one entity regulates those products on its own whims. It is not only impossible on the technical level but also on the theoretical level.

Pretty sure the UK will/does also engage in regulatory alignment, where it makes sense and reduces cost for companies. It's obviously a trade-off. The benefit is that you can reject certain regulations, the downside is that you have no say in making them (Switzerland is involved in the process of making them, but doesn't formally decide). Given the UK's weight in the EU, I think it's a bad trade for the UK, I've always said that.

That hardly addresses the services sector though, which we were talking about. Employment laws are definitely different, yet EU companies can still send people here to provide a service, if it's for a limited time and local laws are followed.

[wat0n]

It's not just Switzerland, any business wanting to export to the EU must abide by its regulations, that includes businesses from countries that export to the EU without having signed any FTAs with the EU itself or any of its members. If the Brits truly quit because they don't like the EU's product regulations, they are morons.

But I honestly don't think that was the reason. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me Brexit was fueled by a mix of some weird nostalgia and a desire to control immigration from the European mainland.

At least by respecting those regulations British businesses be compliant with those from most other large economies they may wish to export to, which I guess is a consolation prize.

[Rugoz]

But I honestly don't think that was the reason. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me Brexit was fueled by a mix of some weird nostalgia and a desire to control immigration from the European mainland.

The EU was simply too ideological/boneheaded when it comes to free movement. There are huge wage differentials within the EU and the UK is a high-income member that speaks the lingua franca.

[wat0n]

The EU was simply too ideological/boneheaded when it comes to free movement. There are huge wage differentials within the EU and the UK is a high-income member that speaks the lingua franca.

I guess so, although I'm not sure just how large those were. Are they larger than the wage differential within EU states themselves?

[Rugoz]

I guess so, although I'm not sure just how large those were. Are they larger than the wage differential within EU states themselves?

If you include Eastern Europe, certainly. Otherwise Italy probably takes the cake. This is not about national governments and how they cope with the issue though.

[Rugoz]

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me Brexit was fueled by a mix of some weird nostalgia and a desire to control immigration from the European mainland.

As for the nostalgia part. I think the differences in political culture matter too. The EU is arguably Franco-German in its organization, with powerful courts making important political decisions (the ECJ). It's rather elitist and technocratic. From what I can tell this is alien to British political tradition (which might be elitist but not technocratic).

[noemon]

The Prime Minister had an inspiring message for everyone on New Year’s Eve: get vaccinated to help stop the spread of omicron. It should be everyone’s resolution for 2022, he said, although with 82.5pc of those aged 12 and over double-jabbed, and 59.3pc already topped up with a booster, it was not a rallying cry to divide the nation in “take back control” style.

Still, in the spirit of telling others what to do, here’s a new year’s pledge for Boris Johnson. Prove to the people of this country – both Brexiteers and Remainers – that Brexit isn’t destined to become a historic failure.

It’s been five long years since the shock referendum result and 12 full months since Britain burst free from the shackles of Brussels. Yet even some of the most ardent Brexiteers are beginning to reluctantly concede that life outside the EU has yet to live up to its billing. Lord Frost’s resignation from the Cabinet last month partly expressed that disappointment.

The Government too seems to have tacitly acknowledged such frustrations with a press release to mark the end of 2021 that promised “to build on Brexit achievements in 2022”. Coming just as several trade bodies warned that new customs checks would wreck imports from the bloc, with one predicting they would become “more expensive, less flexible and much slower”, it was comically bad timing.

According to No 10’s missive, among the “key successes” so far is “taking back control of our borders”, a boast not necessarily supported by the record number of Channel crossings in 2021 when arrivals tripled to more than 28,000, or the exodus of legal migrant EU workers that has left some industries facing a workforce crisis.



Still, if nothing else, surely we can all agree that when it comes to “axing red tape”, the return of the crown stamp on to the side of pint glasses counts as a significant victory over those pesky Brussels bureaucrats. Ditto removing the ban on selling in pounds and ounces.

It’s pretty weak stuff from the Downing Street spinners. Perhaps all those parties are catching up with them. What has happened to all the big free trade deals that were promised? In their search for benefits, officials are scraping the bottom of the barrel with such fury that they have tunnelled through to the antipodes.

The Prime Minister can talk all he likes about “landmark deals” with Australia and New Zealand but by the Government’s own admission, neither will move the dial when it comes to GDP or cheaper goods.

The pacts are supposed to “pave the way” for Britain’s entry to the £9 trillion Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, whose members include major economies such as Canada, Japan and Mexico. But membership of this big club remains aspirational for now and there are serious questions about the overall benefits to exporters given the physical distance between the UK and the Pacific region.

It has also been pointed out that the UK may be required to make the kind of compromises that Brexiteers persistently cited as one of the main reasons for leaving the EU.

The big prize remains an agreement with America but as the one-year anniversary of Joe Biden’s inauguration approaches, a transatlantic tie-up remains as far beyond our reach as ever. The unfortunate reality anyway is that for all the political hot air that they generate, most free-trade deals have very little impact owing to their limited scope.



But it’s not just that the benefits of Brexit have so far proved elusive. It’s worse than that. The initial impact, from chaos with customs checks and a heavy blow to business investment has been almost overwhelmingly negative – and things could get a lot worse.

Goods coming into Britain face a fresh avalanche of paperwork, threatening more supply chain dislocation and to overwhelm our ports. The Northern Ireland conundrum – which stumped Lord Frost and failed to merit a mention in the Prime Minister’s new year message – has been handed to Liz Truss, whose recent ascendency is better evidence of the Government’s weakness than her strengths. Food prices could spiral further after a year in which inflation had hit 5.2pc by the end of November.

For the time being, the Government still has the electorate on its side but only just perhaps. While a recent Ipsos Mori poll found just 24pc of the population favoured rejoining the EU, results of a separate survey for Opinium showed that 42pc of people who voted Leave in 2016 had a negative view of how Brexit had turned out so far.

Voters aren’t mugs. Ministers can’t keep dismissing the downsides as teething problems. Nor will the public continue to accept the jam tomorrow version of events. When Boris says the Government will go “further and faster” in 2022 to maximise the opportunities of Brexit, he should be held to it.

This is the year when reality should finally match all the hype, otherwise even the most staunch Brexiteers may be forced to question whether they will ever get what they wanted.

[Political Interest]

The Brexiteers have no idea what they're doing.

It's a big fake, they're just making it up as they go along.

The fuel crisis is a perfect case in point, no fuel because they didn't know what they were doing or how to do it.

Trade deals, barely any have been secured.

After leaving the EU they could have negotiated a sensible deal, one in which they still got access to proper European markets. Instead they went for the maximal most hardline and stupid Brexiteer position, the one I thought the British were too smart to go for.

Global Britain is a big bluff.

[Rich]

The EU was simply too ideological/boneheaded when it comes to free movement.

No the problem was that the British political elite were united in their support for mass immigration and Turkish membership of the EU. Free movement of labour to under cut British wages and to fuel business growth was the one thing about the EU that most of the early Brexiteers really liked. The Remain campaign's argument was we are going to continue working night and day to get Turkey into the EU, but don't worry because France will block it. Most of the voters in the referendum saw through this worthless guarantee, because they knew that at some point France would really need something at which point the other pro Turkish member countries would use the movement of weakness to force France to accept Turkish membership.

Boris Johnson was just more honest and credible. He said, I like the rest of the elite am going to continue to push tirelessly for Turkish membership, but if you're out of the EU you won't have to suffer the consequences. The British government could easily have got curbs on EU immigration, but the cost is that they would have had to tackle non EU immigration. And that would have negated the main point of being in the EU for the British elite. We didn't enable mass immigration to be an EU member we became an EU member to enable mass immigration. It started at the end of World War II with the use of German slave labour. As soon as the German slave labour started winding down they started looking for other sources of labour and extra consumers.

But generally if people are unhappy with Brexit they should address their complaints to the Liberal Democrat party. They were the first major party to push for an in / out referendum. I don't think even UKIP were pushing for an in / out referendum back then.

[Rugoz]

No the problem was that the British political elite were united in their support for mass immigration and Turkish membership of the EU. Free movement of labour to under cut British wages and to fuel business growth was the one thing about the EU that most of the early Brexiteers really liked. The Remain campaign's argument was we are going to continue working night and day to get Turkey into the EU, but don't worry because France will block it. Most of the voters in the referendum saw through this worthless guarantee, because they knew that at some point France would really need something at which point the other pro Turkish member countries would use the movement of weakness to force France to accept Turkish membership.

Boris Johnson was just more honest and credible. He said, I like the rest of the elite am going to continue to push tirelessly for Turkish membership, but if you're out of the EU you won't have to suffer the consequences. The British government could easily have got curbs on EU immigration, but the cost is that they would have had to tackle non EU immigration. And that would have negated the main point of being in the EU for the British elite. We didn't enable mass immigration to be an EU member we became an EU member to enable mass immigration. It started at the end of World War II with the use of German slave labour. As soon as the German slave labour started winding down they started looking for other sources of labour and extra consumers.

But generally if people are unhappy with Brexit they should address their complaints to the Liberal Democrat party. They were the first major party to push for an in / out referendum. I don't think even UKIP were pushing for an in / out referendum back then.

Pretty sure Johnson would have gotten a significantly better deal if he did not reject free movement. He didn't reject it because he's personally anti EU immigration, but because he knew ending free movement would be popular.

Cameron was also trying hard to get concessions from the EU in that regard. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum