-
The freedom of movement thing frustrates me to no end: There's quite a few EU countries that set reasonable limits on it (no benefits unless you worked for half a year, or you need to show you have savings...) and the UK could have done this too. But, no.
Complaints about lack of refugee checks seem to be EU wide, it would need investment though in border checks, places for refugees to live, which in the end is tax payer money.
RE financial services, that's more interesting the UK is now in a weak position as France wanted to trading to be done in Euros and the UK veto'd it. If "we" leave...
But that won't influence ROI and their brand of "easy,easy...softly" regulatory enforcement. A lot of that is USA companies though, so if ROI risks leaving the EU it may not totally destroy it.
But the current PM of ROI isn't happy at all with brexit, so perhaps a lot of manoeuvring and negotiation will be done to tighten rules, and enforce them, but not so much it chases ROI into an irexit.
JWestland-
The freedom of movement thing frustrates me to no end: There's quite a
few EU countries that set reasonable limits on it (no benefits unless
you worked for half a year, or you need to show you have savings...)
and the UK could have done this too. But, no.This! Why aren't people talking about this?
Ignoring my own views (that immigration is usually a good thing), there is no reason why the UK can't put restrictions on both EU and non EU immigration without leaving the EU.
The UK could halve immigration if it wanted to. The problem is that the government doesn't want to piss off a certain group of people by admitting that they want high immigration to solve the pensions gap, ageing population and stimulate the economy.
Stonehedge
I agree. If Brexit/Trump has shown anything it is the importance of being as many things to as many people as possible.... although you could say that was one of Blaire's strengths too (or at least all things to the voters that mattered).
It is also a shrewd negotiating move. Post Brexit, France is in a strong position if it wants changes in the EU.
Personally I think the media vastly underestimated and downplayed Cameron's achievements in the pre-referendum negotiations. However, I think the Commission would have conceded more* had it believed Brexit was a realistic possibility. Now they know member states leaving is a real risk there's more scope for bargaining.
My bet is on freedom of movement being limited and boarder control changes (an easy spot admittedly). Second, is some sort of financial services bashing regs to win popular appeal while trying to wrestle FS from the UK and Ire.
*coupled with confidence by Cameron to ask for more obvs
**don't actually know what "more" he would have wanted though... the right to overfish all the fish??