Petition for clean Brexit referendum

[Macca]

It would do in some cases under TTIP. There should be more trepidation over that being implemented than anything involving the EU.

Specifically? I've seen this claimed before but with no evidence and when I looked I couldn't find any.

Or even more generally, what would be an example of a 'Loss of sovereignty' in a trade deal?

[ff1d1l]

Economics - it is impossible to say how the experiment will work out until we conduct it. No-one can be an expert on a system so large and with so many variables that cannot be quantified. There are credible arguments that go both ways on this.

I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.

Loss Of Sovereignty in trade deals - you'll need to define what you mean by sovereignty. To me it is a legal term, Whose court has the last say? If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't. As a member of the EU a UK Court does not have the last say. I find that unacceptable.

Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws (eg, as has happened, environmental), this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.

Labour shortage due to Lower Immigration - the point here is that you do not necessarily have lower immigration you just have control over who you allow to immigrate. If you need doctors and nurses or whatever , they can immigrate. You don't want unskilled labourers because you have enough of them unemployed here already, so you don't let them immigrate.

Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely". Do some googling around falling numbers of nurses post referendum.

[ff1d1l]

Specifically? I've seen this claimed before but with no evidence and when I looked I couldn't find any.

Or even more generally, what would be an example of a 'Loss of sovereignty' in a trade deal?

https://www.theguardian.com/business...tes-ttip-icsid

[Macca]

I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.

There is nothing that predicts short term benefits. Long term benefits are just speculation, is there any point posting them? And it all depends on the final nature of the exit anyway, which we don't know yet.

Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws, this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.


If you sue someone then it has to be decided in a court of law. The question is whose court?



Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely".


I don't understand? Practical reality dictates that if you need to import workers then you will import them. Regardless of policy or ideology. There is no possible scenario in which that would not happen.

The only time there is a problem is if you want them and they don't come. But that is irrelevant to whether UK is in the EU or not.

[ff1d1l]

I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.

There is nothing that predicts short term benefits. Long term benefits are just speculation, is there any point posting them? And it all depends on the final nature of the exit anyway, which we don't know yet.

Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws, this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.


If you sue someone then it has to be decided in a court of law. The question is whose court?



Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely".


I don't understand? Practical reality dictates that if you need to import workers then you will import them. Regardless of policy or ideology. There is no possible scenario in which that would not happen.

The only time there is a problem is if you want them and they don't come. But that is irrelevant to whether UK is in the EU or not.

So, no short term benefits, and long term benefits are so nebulous that you have been unable to find anyone credible asserting this. OK.

Whos court? Read the article I linked to.

Fruit pickers are unskilled. Or will everyone take some sort of skill test? The point with the nurses, is not that they're currently being refused access to the UK, but they are, post referendum going elsewhere. A place has to be attractive to migrate to, and, with higher GDP and no resounding "Go Home" being shouted at them, they are going to other EU countries. But that is a situation we can lay at the feet of the referendum result.

[Macca]

So, no short term benefits, and long term benefits are so nebulous that you have been unable to find anyone credible asserting this. OK.

Whos court? Read the article I linked to.

Fruit pickers are unskilled. Or will everyone take some sort of skill test? The point with the nurses, is not that they're currently being refused access to the UK, but they are, post referendum going elsewhere. A place has to be attractive to migrate to, and, with higher GDP and no resounding "Go Home" being shouted at them, they are going to other EU countries. But that is a situation we can lay at the feet of the referendum result.

I read the article, it has nothing to do with loss of sovereignty. The ICSID is not a 'court' but a tribunal, both sides in the treaty agree to be arbitrated by it. There is nothing to prevent one side from ignoring its ruling except that this may result in the treaty failing. It cannot compel any country to change its laws. This is why I suggested we be specific about what is meant by sovereignty. It is no way comparable to the legal arrangement we currently have with the EU, and it is what that arrangement is now and worse, what it may become in the future, that concerns me.


The 'shortage of skilled labour' thing is a non-issue AFAIAC. In or out of Europe that is always a problem that can be solved.

[ff1d1l]

Sorry Martin, but in my book that is most definitely loss of sovereignty. You might just as well argue from your position that as we signed up to the EU trade with the attendant ECJ no loss of sovereignty was involved? Same thing.
As for changing laws, no the tribunal has no right to do that, but it's decisions would most certainly have that effect in some (most?) cases.

Immigration/labour - we'll have to agree to differ, then - you haven't, though, produced anything credible beyond your personal assertion to support this, I notice.

[Patrick Dixon]

Loss Of Sovereignty in trade deals - you'll need to define what you mean by sovereignty. To me it is a legal term, Whose court has the last say? If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't. As a member of the EU a UK Court does not have the last say. I find that unacceptable.

If we do a trade deal with the USA a UK Court WON'T have the final say. If we revert to WTO rules a UK Court WON'T have the final say.

[Macca]

Clearly we have different ideas of what a Court is and what sovereignty encompasses.

But under your definitions it is impossible for any nation that trades to have sovereignty. So that clearly cannot be the definition of the word or it would be a redundant concept. Or are you arguing that it is a redundant concept?


Re immigration I don't see any need to produce evidence, you need to produce evidence or at least show by what mechanism that the UK outside of the EU will not be able to attract the required skills in the required numbers. As far as I can see there is no difference to that issue whether we are in or out. It is still people's free choice if they want to come and work here either way.

[struth]

judging by the amount of fruit up here not getting picked, and rotting on the plants, we need more, not less immigrants