UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Leaving the EU wasn't the "wrong decision".
Not joining EFTA after leaving was the wrong decision.
While I agree EFTA would be better then no deal.
I'll ask the same question many brexit supporters did when they rejected it.
What dose being a member of the Trade association gain. Most of the things promised by brexit don't exist if we still have to follow the EU rules without having a vote.
Free trade also requires free movement. Because the right to work across borders is all part of the EU free trade vision.
As biased as I admit I am. Because most of the promises of the brexit supporters never appealed to me anyway.
It is very clear that being a member of the Trade agreement dose not meet the reason most supporters voted for it. As it forces us to meet their regulations to be possible.
Members of EFTA are actually consulted before about EU legislation that affects them, and it doesn't get the go-ahead without EFTA approval. So the argument that we wouldn't get a vote is not true.
As for free movement, the whole debate around that is false because the government doesn't want to reduce migration levels due to migrants being a net benefit to the economy. If the government were actually serious about lowering migration levels, they could have done so with non-EU migration whilst we were in the EU. And as we've seen afterwards, with record levels of migration, it's all just smoke and mirrors. Which is why EFTA would have been absolutely fine and the best of both worlds.
As was the argument that we don't have sovereignty. Because other nations get a vote in the rules we have to follow. But Brexit supporter fell for it. And a yes or screw it for every other member vote. Is clearly less whatever the people voting thought sovereignty was, then being a member able to propose rules. So no the idea we don't get a vote. Is no more false then any other idea that Brexit supporters wanted.
Sorry, that is not intended to be dismissive. But we have to accept at this point. Any arrangement must deal with the perceived idealism. EFTA was rejected for that very reason. The hard Brexiters did not see it as as leaving the EU. Just remaining with less of a say.
I agree with migration. But again, it's not really answering my question. But skirting it. We left the EU because a % of voters wanted to stop migration. Being a member of EFTA in no way allows that. And the whole argument for Brexit can be put down to blaming the EU for shit our government did. So, saying our gov want migration. Is not a reason why EFTA is a better option then staying in the EU was. But just an attempt to ignore the arguments used to leave.
Just to make things clear from my point of view. Free trade means borderless trade. That is the point of the EU agreement. Any system that allows us to have laws dramatically different to the laws of the area we trade. Will require some form of customs checks. To ensure we are supplying goods that meet their laws, not ours. That is simply the way ant trade deal has to work.
If we are having to follow the laws to have an open border (goods as even if we could gain an agreement without migration it really does not change the argument). Then what is the advantage of being out of the EU if we are in the EFTA.
As I said, I am biased because I don't personally see any advantage being out of the EU. So for the sake of argument, ill except any evidence of increased sovereignty. But not as a grab all term with no definition. It needs to have some clear element of control of our own laws that we do not have as an EU member.
For the sake of argument then let's revisit the immigration question. Under EU (and I assume EFTA) rules we wouldn't be able to apply an immigration system that applied to everyone equally because we would (and did) have to apply a separate more permissive one for EU citizens. Why should an otherwise equally qualified computer programmer from, let's say, Peru be at a disadvantage compared to an equally qualified computer programmer from France? Outside the EU we can apply the same rules regardless of where the applicant is from ergo sovereignty, no?
If we need more computer programmers or more lorry drivers or fewer life coaches we are able to flex rules around this so that demand can be filled. If that's by computer programmers from Peru or lorry drivers from Bulgaria or construction workers from Indonesia that doesn't matter. So there is that argument.
It's a proper shame that this government hasn't published a clear and understandable industrial strategy so that these decisions can be seen in full context for five or more years in the future. Instead what people seem obsessed about is reductions in immigration rather than a more nuanced take on fairness to fill capacity / need.
Except we could. Under the EU each nation has the options to limit entry in an emergency. And just like when the UK was one of the few nations not to make new eastern block members wait until their nation had evened out fiscally. We have never chosen to implement them when others have.
We always had more control over EU imergration then our gov was willing to use. So any more control over that is nothing but a mythical idea we as a nation will not use. (as you yourself said).
So while leaving the EU and EFTA may give us the option to make perminant rules. Doing so is no more realistic than the need to defend ourselves from Dragons.
PS my question was
Sovereignty only counts as an argument if we gain it via EEA membership. And these examples don't. As I said I am biased so don't see it as an argument to leave the EU.
But my point was, I am willing to accept your original point that the issue is not leaving the EU. But EFTA. If you can prove, we gain it some way as an EEA member.
Sorry for the confusion.
Forgive me but that's not the same as having fair and equal immigration rules for all nations.
Hasn't Sunak just exactly done this? He's exercised control over immigration for the purpose of allowing more construction workers into the country to respond to demand. It doesn't matter where they are from as lonyas it is on an equal basis and demand based. You couldn't do that in the EU.
Hey you leave the Welsh out of this! 😄
Oh sorry I wasn't arguing about this. I was merely providing an example about your challenge with sovereignty. I agree leaving the EU and joining EFTA won't achieve this.
No under the EU we had the same legal right to police our borders. We just had to allow EU citizens through.
So EU citizens were not dumb enough to risk their lives. But even now, if you can take a privrate boat from France. You have a right to enter the UK. You just have to radio the coast guard for customs, etc. Nothing Sunak is doing now was more of an issue during EU membership. We were just able to convince France to do some of the work.
We were never part of the Schengen Agreement. How you are legally allowed to enter the nation has always been under UK control.
Again, forgive me I think you're conflating immigration (staying in the country) with entering the country.
My main point is, to your point about what can the UK do outside the EU that it couldn't inside, that it can apply an immigration system equally to all applicants that flexs with the demands of the UK at the time. By your own replies you acknowledge that it couldn't do that because it had to give special treatment to EU citizens.
And the small boats are entirely about entering the country.
People on small boats are not EU citizens. So we are entirely in control of the immigration part. And were during our EU membership.
My point was No to your question that leaving the EU allowed Sunak to act on it. He already had all the rights he does now with relation to his actions.
Sorry I'm lost now are we talking about the same thing still? I'm specifically talking about creating an immigration system that doesn't discriminate between EU / other and that can flex depending on demand.
It sounds like you're talking about small boat crossing which isn't immigration.