buctootim

Interesting that an hour ago it was around 85,000 and most signatories were from the UK. Now its 135,000 and most are overseas, especially Brazil. Its going viral.

The EU havent huffed and puffed, they have rejected it and said it is incompatible with the agreements Switzerland has made. The Swiss Government is scrabbling around looking for a window dressing solution - the most likely of which is that they will set a quota which is greater than the level EU immigration has ever reached. Even then there is no guarantee the EU will accept it.

They've chosen to suck it up because they have no alternative, just like Britain wouldn't.

Good find! 500 in the last 3 minutes

1. Accept unlimited immigration from EU 2. End banking secrecy and report EU citizens financial details to EU. 3. Accept EU single market legislation 4. Pay into EU budget 5. Have no say in any of the above. Cracking deal.

No. Im saying the terms of the deal will favour the 26 countries, not the one.

No the EU wont walk away - they will offer the same terms as Norway and Switzerland and Iceland got. As I said above its a members club. They arent going to offer associates a better deal than members because doing so would trigger a clamour of me too. At some stage the 'ever closer union' will stop because a majority of the 27 will say 'enough'. That majority isnt there yet.

Your issue (Im assuming) is that you want economic co-operation but not the political union. I understand that. The problem is that that isnt on offer. The EU is as members club. No club is going to offer a better package to an associate than to its members - hence why Norway, Switzerland etc still have to accept freedom of movement of people (amongst many other things) as the price for trading with the EU. 31 countries have accepted that and they arent going to change for Britain. My view is that the only two options available to us are as a member of the EU, or as an associate like Switzerland with all the same obligations but no vote and influence. We might wish there was a third pick and mix option - take the bits you like, leave the bits you dont - but there aint.

So which trading bloc do you think we should be in?

Almost every other industrialised country is seeking to join or form a trading bloc - NAFTA, AFTA, SAFTA, MERCOSUR, EU but plucky Britain can go it alone with a little faith.

Immigration from the EU was always going to spike for a few years after a big enlargement from the poorer Eastern European countries. That will change. In the late 80s and early 1990s immigration to / from the EU was almost flat or slightly negative. As soon as the economies equalise - and they will - immigration will stop and probably reverse. Poland's GDP has increased 9 fold since 1990, 25 years of continuous growth whilst Britain's has increased by only 2.5 times. In the 1980s British workers were going to Germany for work. In the 2030s I wouldnt be surprised if they are going to Poland.

The housing problem is because we arent building enough and still wouldnt be if immigration didnt exist. Flooded job market? nah

I guess for two reasons. 1. because the corruption is (hopefully) mostly not in UEFA but in the African. American and Asian Federations 2. Because the Swiss have built their economy on keeping other people's dirty secrets.

Chutzpah more like.

I added another paragraph since you quoted, so I'll put it here for clarity. The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than just trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Switzerland has a raft of agreements which add up to the same thing. http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement So essentially they are members of the EU with all the obligations and responsibilities but without the voting rights. Only around 20% of Britain's laws emanate from Brussels and those which do set a common standard across Europe - so you can argue that the EU reduces bureacracy and complexity rather than increasing it. I get the sense that you mourn Britain's loss of independence and freedom of action. Thats a legitimate position - I agree we have lost independence. Globalisation has a lot of disbenefits and I dislike the world aggregating into trading blocs. The EU isnt the cause though, its a symptom of countries banding together for strength because of the changed situation. We arent going to go back to the days of waiting for seasonal Jersey tomatoes and potatos to hit the shops and buying British. People demand year round availability and choice. That comes from global trade - and global trade is governed by access agreements and tariffs. Collectively the EU has a big stick and can negotiate hard terms with China, NAFTA etc. Britain alone, not so much. Im not saying we drown outside the EU, but we would certainly take a big hit in GDP and exports.

Its a good example of why most countries limit their leaders to two terms. If you allow a leader to stay in place too long they can build up a fiefdom where the staff's loyalty is to the leader rather than the organisation / country.

Not for you, I was referring to the costs of administering the recharging system

Is your argument that we wont be adversely affected because we've adopted the laws already? - or that we drop the laws and hope the EU give us a uniquely favourable access deal? The EEA (which governs EU relationships with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein) covers the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — much wider than justy trade. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement Pretty much ALL European countries are either members of the EU, are seeking accession to the EU, or have trade agreements with the EU that require them to adopt pretty much the same EU legislation and pay market access fees, but without the representation. Why is Greece contorting themselves and ditching all their election promises? Why is that if the EU is optional, even undesirable? 50% of our trade is with the EU. Fishing makes up 0.07% of our GDP. Ah yes but if we had control it would be more. It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the shortfall of us leaving the EU.

But its not hard to have a system where all deaths occurring as a result of police activity are reported to a central database. If you dont even know the numbers or circumstances how can you formulate policy to address the issue?

Because its exactly what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do at present and they aren't going to modify the rules for us. https://fullfact.org/europe/europe_debate_Norway_Switzerland-31063

Its only 10 WCs though. Sure I think England should be in contention - but Russia would have had a claim even without the corruption, as well as SE Asia, China or Australia / NZ.

I dont know how well the health scheme works but suspect it is a time consuming nightmare. It might be worthwhile trying to claim back the cost of somebody's six week stay in hospital but not the £50 cost of a GP appointment - and its probably the millions of small scale cases where most of the costs are. Some kind of length of residency based scheme to be eligible for benefits is really the only one which would work imo.

Are you guys okay. No-one got an early morning call?

True, but relatively few countries have the existing infrastructure needed to stage a WC at short notice. Anyway as you said, its just bookies looking to make some money on bets - and obviously most English punters back England. No real story.

The Yanks are really hot on financial crime - money laundering, fraud etc. They are the ones who have initiated the LIBOR fixing cases against British banks that our government was inert on. It seems as though some of the proceeds were held in American accounts, so giving them jurisdiction.