European Single Market: Will Britain stay in?

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, another one:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/swiss-eu-standoff-striking-similarities-uk-predicament

Quote:

Switzerland has blinked first in a standoff with the EU that mirrors the UK’s Brexit debate on the critical trade-off between free movement and a special trade deal with the bloc.The Alpine republic voted narrowly to impose EU immigration quotas in a 2014 referendum that must be implemented by next February, but Brussels has said any cap would deny Switzerland its privileged access to the single market.With talks between Bern and the EU commission due to resume on 19 September, Swiss ministers have welcomed a parliamentary panel’s plan to give preference to locals in job hires rather than impose unilateral quotas on foreigners.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, this is what May has to say:http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-07/debates/Hocdebdt20160907scrlgtghs_8Questionod13tiengagements/Engagements

Quote:

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to quite understand what the vote on 23 June was about. The United Kingdom will leave the European Union and we will build a new relationship with the European Union. That new relationship will include control over the movement of people from the EU into the UK, and it will include the right deal for trade in goods and services. That is how to approach it. I also say to him that, in looking at the negotiations, it would not be right for me or this Government to give a running commentary on them

So, I was right there is a threat to democracy, if secret negotiations, followed by a Royal Prerogative treaty may be the outcome of the loosely worded referendum question.And in response to Corbyn:

Quote:

The right hon. Gentleman talked about what we will be doing in our negotiations with the European Union. I covered this in my statement, but just to reiterate: what we will be doing as we negotiate our leaving the European Union is negotiating a new relationship with the European Union. That will include control on the movement of people from the EU into the UK—I do not think he referred to that—but it will also be about getting the right deal for trade in goods and services that we want to see. It will be a new relationship. As I indicated in my statement, and indeed in Prime Minister’s questions, I will not be giving a running commentary, and the Government will not be giving a running commentary, on our negotiations. There is a very good reason for that. We want to get the best deal. We want to get the right deal for the United Kingdom, and if we were to give a constant running commentary and give away our negotiating hand, then that is not what we would achieve.

And May's statement:

Quote:

As I have said, this is about getting the kind of deal that is ambitious and bold for Britain. It is not about the Norway model, the Swiss model or any other country’s model—it is about developing our own British model. So we will not take decisions until we are ready, we will not reveal our hand prematurely, and we will not provide a running commentary on every twist and turn of the negotiation. I say that because that is not the best way to conduct a strong and mature negotiation that will deliver the best deal for the people of this country. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House on Monday, what we will do is maximise and seize the opportunities that Brexit presents.

Zero accountability.  Maximum wiggle room.  The only concrete demand is over migration.

[Young Master Smeet]

An interesting issue crops up: an article int he Financial Crimes suggests that there may be a big flashpoint over Pensions for former EU staff: the EU has liabilities of €60 billion: will Britain have to pay an ongoing share, or just pay for British nationals?  Apaprently EU pensions are paid out of cuirrent expenditure (with contributions being dealt with as income for the EU, rather than going into an investment pot).  British nationjals make up 8% of EU pensioners.There will be hundreds of issues like this. 

[Bijou Drains]

Another issue that nobody seems to have considered is the Bosman ruling in the European Court of Justice. In this and other cases the European Court holds precident. Does that precident continue after Brexit?

[Young Master Smeet]

Unpicking EU law is a huge issue, although there are precedents (India, Ireland) for states leaving jursdictions and basically carrying over the law from the old regime and just changing it peicemeal.  I doubt they'll just repeal the Single European Act.

[ALB]

Theresa May has just said that a post-Brexit Britain will be the "global champion of free trade":http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-uk-is-global-champion-of-free-trade-10656863i.e. of more globalisation, but isn't the effects of this on some being said to be one reason for the Brexit vote and the election of Trump?  I don't think she understands that Britain on its own will be a minor player on the world market compared with the US, the EU (and its single market), China and Japan. The tendency is towards big, regional customs unions which do trade deals with each other. The sort of hard Brexist she and some of her ministers want would be a move in the opposite direction. A Britain outside one of these unions may be able to do deals with Canada and Australia but these are countries with small populations and so small markets.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948"No plan for Brexit" what we all knew seems to be confirmed.  As Paul Mason says "Key sentence of Times leak of Govt Brexit fiasco document. Even top civil servants cannot agree on what to ask for"

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

Individual departments have been busily developing their projects to implement Brexit, resulting in well over 500 projects, which are beyond the capacity and capability of government to execute quickly," it says. One ministry has said that it needs a 40 per cent increase in staff to cope with its Brexit workload. "Every department has developed a 'bottom-up' plan of what the impact of Brexit could be – and its plan to cope with the 'worst case'. Although necessary, this falls considerably short of having a 'government plan for Brexit' because it has no prioritisation and no link to the overall negotiation strategy," the memo, seen by The Times, says.

Interestingly, the by-line is by the Times' defence correspondent: why? How?  It's a post that will certainy have to deal with the intelligence services…

[moderator1]

Interesting comment here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38000580Quote:There are those who argue that we would be better off outside the single market or that we should try to stay within the customs union, but I have yet to see anyone argue that it does not make any difference.

[Young Master Smeet]

Relevent to the debate:http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/who-are-left-behind.html

Quote:

The Table shows that the unemployment rate for people aged 16 to 24 is 14.4%, which compares to an unemployment rate of 3.3% for all those aged over 50 years. But in every age category Asian people are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed and in every age category black people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed. Put another way, if you are young and black you are more than nine times as likely to be unemployed as if you are old and white.

So, Brexit, and Trump is not so much the immiserated workers, but the ones holding on, who currently have a stake.

Quote:

On pay, it is also the case that workers who are not white are paid less than their white counterparts and colleagues, and that this pay discrimination increases with qualifications.

Lets not forget, pay has not returned to parity with 2008, so even those in work are feeling the pinch, and can see the precariat below them…

[ALB]

There was a revealing front page headline in yesterday's Times:

Quote:

95% OF NEW WORKERS ARE FOREIGNERS.

Commenting that "Employment levels in Britain are at an all-time high", the article went on:

Quote:

The number of people in work increased by 454,000 between July and September last year and the same period this year. Workers born overseas made up nearly 95 per cent of the increase — just over 430,000.

This underlines that Capital needs Labour to expand, that no new new useful things can be made or new services provided without people working. If the workers to expand capitalist production can't be found in Britain then they will have to be drawn in from outside. To restrict this would slow down  this expansion (which is what capitalism is all about) down. As Jonathan Portes, a fellow of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research was quoted as saying:

Quote:

The figures once again illustrate that with unemployment at very low levels most of the growth in the labour force — and hence of the economy as a whole — relies on foreign-born workers. Of course, the implication of this is that substantial reductions in immigration, resulting from Brexit or from the government's efforts to cut immigration, will hit growth and tax receipts.

Will the government insist on restricting the immigration of workers at the cost of slowing capitalist growth? Will they listen the xenophobic populists or will they put the interests of UK capitalism first?

[alanjjohnstone]

Or will they put the old and the sick back to work…Bring forward the retirement age of 70… And, of course, we can all work two uber jobs https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-future-to-come.htmlDid i ever mention that i have to return to the UK to work and acquire additional Nat. Ins. stamps because the Tories changed the qualifying years for full pension rights? So capitalism has got one extra member of the workforce in due course. 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Did i ever mention that i have to return to the UK to work and acquire additional Nat. Ins. stamps because the Tories changed the qualifying years for full pension rights? So capitalism has got one extra member of the workforce in due course. 

Thats interesting.  Can you elaborate on this Alan?

[ALB]

Reading the Sun yesterday evening while I waited for my pizza to be done I read that, among the organisations, allowed to intervene before the Supreme Court when it hears the government's appeal against a lower court's ruling that it must consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, was what they called "a left wing union for migrant workers", the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain.Not regarding the Sun as a reliable source of information I checked and it's true:http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/interventions-in-brexit-appeal.htmlThey have been allowed to intervene as representing the interests of EU workers in Britain. Since they are a breakaway from the IWW (see: https://iwgb.org.uk/how-we-began/ ), I wonder if the judges knew what they were doing and also how they'll present their case. Having said that, their objects do not include the IWW's "abolition of the wages system". They are projecting themselves as an ordinary trade union. Maybe they are:https://iwgbunion.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/iwgb_constitution-28-march-2016.pdfIn any event, it's a coup for them.

[Young Master Smeet]

I believe the IWGB were behind the Uber court case, and I know they have organised outsourced Universiy of London cleaners.

[Author]

Posts