Because it's a complete waste of time.

The EU have shown time and time again they are simply not open to reform. Their top people have said it over and over: the 'pillars' shall not be moved. Cameron did the rounds looking for support to reform and found a cowed and brainwashed EU unwilling to rock the boat. Even now, when one of its biggest members is leaving, they simply cannot accept the ideal is fatally flawed.

If you know Germans and Germanics as well as I do, you know they never admit they are wrong. The EU, therefore, will plod inevitably along its disastrous path and continue to disrupt the entire continent and fail to handle the shambles of freedom of movement, the immigration crisis and the Euro.

Progressive liberalism at its best.



That is pretty much the main reason I voted to leave.

I was replying to the post saying that we hadn't dropped off the proverbial cliff edge yet, despite all the doom mongers predictions

Wage stagnation doesnt explain why productivity is sluggish, surely it's the other way round (ie.poor productivity is suppressing potential wage growth) ??
The main reason for poor wage growth is so many years of austerity cuts and despite "huge" numbers of "new" jobs being creates, the vast, vast majority of these are at the bottom end of the salary scale (zero hours, apprenticeships, faux self employed etc). Add to this sluggish growth and very few are seeing any decent growth in their salaries and if you work for the public sector, the situation is gloomier still.
(btw inflation is now over 3% and rising, primarily due to the falling value of the £, the small increase in interest rates may temper this slightly but, interest rates are likely to go up again, albeit slightly, which will start to squeeze growth).

Austerity only hits the public sector and they have actually done better in terms of increases than the private sector.

Lack of productivity is down to poor management and their inability to adapt to concepts such as kaizen.

The BOE were concerned when inflation was zero and the last we all want is deflation so 2/3% is quite normal/healthy. Interest rates might get to 1% within 3 years hardly recession driving.

I think on Brexit the Europeans have also realised no deal would be a very bad thing for them too and a touch of realism is starting to emerge.

How can you say that austerity only hits the public sector ?
Do you not think there is a ripple effect on where that money is spent, which squeezes the high street as well as the supply chain into the public sector, in turn suppressing profitability and ability to increase wages outside the public sector.

I'm not sure that's true - and we'd at least have a chance of it if we stayed in and worked towards it, whilst maintaining free trade with a bloc that currently accounts for about 50% of our exports.

It strikes me that the 'pillar' that causes your average Brexiter the greatest consternation is free movement; and the scandal of that is that the UK Government had the ability to be much more robust whilst staying within EU rules, but chose not to.

Because austerity is how the government has restricted wage growth within the public sector - it cannot influence the private sector other than via the minimum wage.

These two areas have seen the biggest % wage growth amongst most workers - the bosses that's a different story!!

Profit's are suppressed because of a lack of investment in capital items probably due to the banks' lack of appetite for lending and poor management in the middle tier of management.

Why would you when most of the members and the EU itself have repeatedly stated they absolutely not open to reform? At what point do you decide your efforts are wasted and it's time to move on?


Well, yes, because it's been a feckin stunningly idiotic idea since it was first proposed, presumably in some dark & smoky Munich beer hall.



I'm not sure how you expected the UK Government to be 'more robust' with a directive mandating complete freedom of movement for all EU citizens? How exactly could they be more robust without facing the wrath of the Brussels Stazi?

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.htmlThat's not true.[/url The UK was in fact one of only 3 countries that didn't use the measures that were available to them, quite legally, to limit freedom of movement.

Ah yes, the infamous Blair move to [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.htmlirreversibly change the face of the UK[/url, according to one of his own. A cynical and unforgivable attempt to bring in Labour voters and to force multiculturalism and diversity on a society that didn't need it, or indeed want it.

Gee, thanks Tony, ya feckin witless muppet. And people think Thatcher damaged the country.

I think you've missed my point - I was talking about the fact the unlimited freedom of movement was never necessary as a condition of EU membership; the UK Government just chose not to use the powers it had available. And since the Tories engaged in project UKIP, they could have implemented it any time in the last 8 years, but again, chose not to - with one Mrs T May as the Home Secretary in charge of immigration policy.

I get your point entirely - but I'll never miss a chance to remind people of Blair's disgraceful and cynical decision.

So, Blair chose not to put restrictions in place in 2004. We all knew that. Blair is a muppet. We all knew that too. I see nothing that says the UK could have put these restrictions in place at a later date, which seems to be what you are saying. I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

Yes, tracking of EU immigration has been a disaster - at first I suspect because Labour in their wisdom had no concept of just how many Eastern Europeans would arrive, and later because no national system has been put in place linking every port of entry to the UK as well every other office an immigrant might present themselves to.

And yes, there have always been limited powers of removal dependant on reviewing every immigrant's status after 90 days (working, student or self-sufficient) - but in reality they can actually stay for [i"a period of six months and even longer, if they continue to seek employment in the host Member State and have a genuine chance of being engaged"[/i.

Someone please tell me how such an ambiguous rule can be effectively enforced.



Then, after 5 years of uninterrupted legal residency (well, no less than 6 months a year!), the immigrant automatically becomes a permanent resident. So, drag it out for a few years, claim you're looking for work, take a job or two in that time and you're legally entitled to stay forever.

And that, guv'nor, is why Eastern (and Southern) Europeans have been flooding here as fast as they can. It's all weighted in their favour.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.htmlHere you go.[/url

And?

All that says is we could have put restrictions in place in 2004. We know that. It does not say we could have put those same restrictions in place at a later date. Have you even read the article?

Yes, Cameron won a vague and ambiguous concession in 2016 in that we could limit some immigration "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In addition, if overriding reasons of public interest make it necessary, free movement of workers may be restricted by measures proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." We knew this too.

Given that the government would need to prove cause & effect, establish a legitimate aim and determine exactly what 'proportionate measures' might mean, and then win the inevitable legal challenges, I suspect we'd all be long dead in our graves before the EU agreed to anything meaningful. If they ever did. Which I doubt.

Either way, fact is the numbers coming in have been far too high with effectively zero controls, and anyway there were plenty of other reasons for getting out of the EU.

Well it was worth a try - I didn't think it would have much impact on you, but it does provide some context to what became a central plank of the Leave campaign; successive governments have singularly failed to use the controls which were readily available to them around immigration - and the current one was quite happy to demonise those people and blame them for all the ills of society - which is patently not true.

All of this presupposes that FOM is a bad thing of course, which I don't happen to agree with - partly because the facts don't back it up; but it does suggest that the Tory response to the groundswell of public concern that resulted in the rise of UKIP was an error; instead of becoming UKIP to win those voters back, they could have insisted that the incumbent Home Secretary implement the measures that were available to her - thus satisfying to some extent those people who were concerned about immigration.

We're coming at this from entirely different viewpoints of course - I think we're heading for an economic cliff-edge, and that Brexit is an act of national self-harm that will have a negative impact for generations to come; you support it unequivocally, and I will concede that whilst I believe that the vast majority of the minority who voted for it did so because they didn't understand what they were voting for, and were stirred to act by the dishonesty of the dark money funded Leave campaign, you do have a much deeper understanding. So whilst I fundamentally disagree with your view, I can't accuse you of the same thing - and I respect your opinion.

This is now about money - Europe need our money we need a deal - simple stuff to me.

We agree a generous exit fee in return we get what we want in a deal.

It is really that simple now.

But government is totally divided on what to pay up.

Ideally we agree as long a transition as possible to ensure as few c0ck ups as possible as the complexity of what is being attempted becomes clear.

This has to be completed before the next election so that gives everyone a realistic time frame.

You agree a number and the EU will agree to:
Trade deal
No EU court juristiction
No free movement

The EU need the money more than anything else that is the weak point in their position it just need exploiting

That seems to be the sticking point.

Someone needs to be pragmatic about - do the sums and find the break even point of what it is estimated it will cost us in the first 5 year of leaving and you have your number.

That is the UK's leverage - the EU for all its bluster needs the cash desperately. This is not rocket science but that is what happens when you have career politicians who have never had a proper job trying to do commercial deals.

We should have given the task to a the likes of Branson/Sugar etc guys that are used to doing deals on a large scale even the guy from Cobra beer would have done a better job

How far do you think we (the UK) will allow the demands for cash to run.
We are up to over£40 billion so far and the EU are sure to come back saying "that's still not enough" to progress to the next stage of negotiations.
Much as it will cause massive short term pain, we ought to just walk away and agree a settlement figure afterwards.

Much as both sides "need" a deal, the EU will prolong this as long as they possibly can.

Agreed they will try and push us into a corner - I'm with I would say to the EU give us a date talks are off until you give us a date for trade talks to start

Push us into a corner?

The EU negotiators don't need to do anything other than hold their hands out and get a big fat fat cheque.

Both sides know full well by now how much GB's commitment to the EU is going to cost. The problem May has is how to convince the dumb electorate into accepting paying it. Get this wrong and the Tories are finished.

No one likes having their stupidity exposed to ridicule not least the average voter.

Nah, that's rubbish.
Nige said that it would be a free trade deal, no payout AND £350,000,000 a week for the NHS.
Maybe "project fear" was right after all



It's time to realise that, as one of the main net contributors to the EU, the UK has the boss hand here.
Time to play hard ball and say feck em and then let's see what the next move is by the EU.

I know that there is plenty of legal stuff to get through but, this is all getting terribly tedious.

The UK may have some leverage but it's certainly not got the "boss hand". The EU will want a decent contribution or they'll make us pay in other ways that may last for decades. We need to arrive at a reasonable sum. Difficult when the hard right think we shouldn't be paying anything.



It's not meant to be entertaining. The details is the important bit but the leavers seem to want to gloss over all that and just walk away without considering the consequences.

I think there is a case for calling their bluff - just say unless they come back with a date for trade negotiations to start no more meetings will take place and no offer of additional monies will be made.

I still think we will end up with WTO terms at worst.

If we had put some hard nosed business people doing the negotiations rather than weak willed politicians the framework would have been agreed by now.