Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I notice though, Chloé, that you don't mention Barnier's intransigence and inflammatory language, to which Davis was responding.
|
In regards to that I hadn't seen his comments that seem to have stung Davis the way that they seem to have. He (Barnier) is a seasonal negotiator (you have to be to deal with Brussels as a whole, at a Federalist level) where as Davis seems to have gone at this as quite a novice / someone caught quite blind-sighted. When Davis said what he did, I kind of thought "If they could have been that imaginative / creative to begin with then there would have been no need for a referendum to begin with". Barnier is a wile old fox in a lot of ways and he has clearly taken the more conciliatory tone where as Junker has taken the role of very much hard lined unwavering discipline. If anything, Tusk has been the most accommodating (I think that he really did try his best to get Cameron a negotiation that would work for the public) and Barnier has tried his best, too - it is Guy and CJ that have come across as rather abrasive.
Quote:
|
It is in the interests of both sides to have frictionless trade and it is entirely possible to achieve this, but we do not intend and will not accept free movement of people.
|
This is where I disagree with you, some. While I agree that it may well be in the best interest(s) of everyone (definitely, in fact) to have as friction-less trade it is not possible at all, IMO, unless the UK stays a member of the CU. Like Mick said above, he knows what he was voting for and realizes that there will have to be tariffs and borders if the UK leaves the CU.
It is not just about whether it is practically feasible or not ; the logistics are one thing but it is the principle of the matter. What purpose would it serve to be a member of the CU for any member state if they could just opt in to which trade agreements that they wanted and strike their own ones after? The whole purpose of the EU trade agreements are collectivism - you either do it together or not at all. You're either in it (no friction) or out (free to strike your own trade deals round the world, plus barriers and tariffs with the EU). Has to be one or the other.
Quote:
Incidentally, I agree that the objective of reducing immigration to the hundreds of thousands should be dropped. A ridiculous ploy by David Cameron, in my book.
It should be reduced to whatever is required by industry and our public services, and that should be the objective behind controlling immigration.
|
Absolutely agree with you there 100% - I do not know who or where it came from but the whole idea of quotas on migration should surely have some empiric (something or another) data behind it. Markets and public services / industry seem like one of them - no? Maybe wage and currency issues etc - but I get the feeling that Cameron / May etc just plucked it out of thin air and nor could it or should it ever have been suggested. Bad policy formed on...I am not sure what.