To be furious if this is true-the freedom of movement

[Rebecca2014]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/evan-davis-newsnight-bbc-daniel-hannan-mep-eu-referendum-brexit_uk_576e2967e4b08d2c56393241

Seriously? majority of people who voted for leave wanted control of our borders, we brought into your story of an Australian style point system now it seems there's still going be freedom of labour movement which is basically the same thing expect they get less legal rights.

I didn't just vote leave for immigration but yes it was a big reason and if I known this, if remain had a better hammered this home I bet MANY leave voters would not have voted the way they did. If anything if this happens, many leave voters will join the remain voters in rage at the lies we been fed. (NHS, Immigration)

I have been a vocal leave supporter on here but now I am feeling pretty scared about what I have voted for. I blame the remain campaign for having an totally shit and ineffective campaign and Cameron should never have been the leader of the remain camp, as majority of people despise him and don't take any notice of what he says.

Guy Verhofstadt, who leads the who leads the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe parliamentary group in the European Parliament, has just said in an interview with Scottish TV in Brussels:

"There is no "no big obstacle" to an independent Scotland joining the EU BEFORE Brexit"

If it's not possible to stop Brexit, then at least let the strong Remain countries stay in the EU, i.e. Scotland - and Gibraltar.
It would also mean that the rUK that actually Brexits would have a higher % who voted for it than the 51.9% over the UK.

Free movement + access to markets, BUT we cease to be subject to all the wider rules and regulations.

But that pick n' mix option was never going to be on the table. Many people would be happy with an EFTA type agreement as Switzerland has, and after all that is what we had before we went into the Common Market. But many wouldn't - they don't want the free movement for a starter. Switzerland anyway is now have some problems with this.

Mishaps
I would like to know what's wrong with EU regulations anyway. In my view, they've mostly been beneficial to our health, rights, safety and the environment.
I just used some silicone in the bathroom. The product was certified by CE health and safety rules. That makes me feel safe. I don't think people realize to what point our lives have improved because of all "the rules".

Most people when challenged struggle to cite a genuinely EU based regulation that materially affects them. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. People have been sold a pile of nonsense by the mail and the express. Adam Wagner has a good post about this. I will add it.

rightsinfo.org/brexit-five-lessons/

Here it is. I posted it on another thread too so apologies if you have already seen it. It's interesting.

For many of us, the regulations are an extremely good thing, but they cost money. At that is what certain businesses do not like. Also they like 'flexible' labour i.e. to hire and fire at will.

One small crumb of comfort for me was reading in today's paper about Mike Ashley, who imports many of his goods from the far east. So a weak £ is not in his interest. He mostly employs East European Labour, so it will be interesting to see how that works out for him. If his business goes bankrupt, I won't shed too many tears for him.

They do like flexible labour, hiring and firing at will, I agree, but apart from the collective redundancies consultation directive, which rarely impacts small business because it is only triggered by sackings of 20 or more employees over 90 days, EU law has absolutely nothing to say about dismissal law. That's one reason why the uk is one of the quickest and cheapest places to fire someone in the developed world (not that you'd think it if you listened to the British chamber of commerce and their Tory friends). It is all a big myth.

Why would you think we're going to get that particular compromise mishaps?

Free movement + access to markets, BUT we cease to be subject to all the wider rules and regulations.

This is not exactly on the table - with the Norway model Britain would be subject to most EU rules and regulations, with some notable exceptions (agriculture, fisheries, security, euro, ever-closer union...)

The main thing Britain would gain would be the return of its full sovereignty - but in exchange for willingly accepting laws and regulations made in Brussels without its input, so arguably an illusion of sovereignty.

Not nearly as good as deal as the EU, but still way better than not having access to the Single Market.

I'm not sure I understand chalala. Is Norway obliged to follow regulations - say eg working time directive - but not obliged to comply with interpretative rulings of the European court of justice on these regulations?

Please tell me they didn't crash the economy just to achieve this - i.e just so that the Supreme Court can have the final say over, for example, the meaning of 'wages' for the purposes of holiday pay?

It is mind blowing incompetence on an industrial scale. The simple fact is that British judges have been interpreting uk laws following EU directives for 40 years. Even if this trivial change is achieved, posters need to be aware that:

• 40 years of case law precedent has enshrined these EU principles in our common law - nobody is quite sure how this will be handled, as we are in constitutionally uncharted waters, but the likelihood is an extremely gradual move away from some but by no means all EU interpretative principles.

• many uk judges are progressive and will continue to interpret regulations in the same way regardless of the change. This is a very nuanced area.

• and most importantly really, the Tories, faced with EU employment regulations they don't like, committed a master stroke in 2013. They introduced tribunal fees that are so high (£1200 just for a first instance pregnancy discrimination case, before you even get on to paying for appeals if you lose) that claims collapsed by 79%. So it is a actually non-problem, except in a tiny minority of cases that piss off the government, where trade unions and charities fund litigation for wider strategic ends.

And even this is likely to diminish, with the strain on trade union and charity funding, and the new controls put in place by this government eg in the trade union act 2016.

Sorry this is a long post, but I am sick of all the sound-buying on this issue of 'constitutional importance'. Gove and boris were never ones for the detail, but sometimes the detail is important because it shows that actually the 'big picture' isn't really very big - and certainly not worth crashing the economy of the fifth (or is it now sixth) biggest trading nation.

Despairs.

so arguably an illusion of sovereignty
This, in a nutshell. Norway incorporate about 70-75% of EU law into their own. Plus we're still members on the ECHR at the moment who can still overrule us so Brexit doesn't mean full sovereignty anyway with or without access to the single market. Its one of those things that's infuriated me during the campaigning, that the EU was often pointed to for things that come from the ECHR. I'm not even 100% sure I can say for definite which rules come from where!

I agree with everybody here pointing out that we simply have to continue with freedom of movement - it was a promise that would have always been impossible to fulfill.

the norway model is a terrible compromise. we get access to the markets but loose the ability to have any say in the laws we are subject too. Its beyond moronic.

... and does the EU spend ANY money in Norway, in return? I think maybe Erasmus is available. Can't find any other info about what else besides access to single market, that Norway gets back.

We had/have such a good deal. Argh.

Well today Stephen Crab says 'I want to lead a government that delivers on the expectations of the 17 million people who voted for Britain to leave the EU. One of the overwhelming messages from that vote was the need to take back control of immigration policy in the UK. So for me, freedom of movement is a red line.'
...

That's correct - Notway pay almost the same per head as we do but get none of the CAP funding etc in return.

It's basically a much worse deal than we have now. All the possible deals are to be frank.

overwhelming messages from that vote was the need to take back control of immigration policy

Surely not I've been assured by the Leave voters on MN that immigration was never a significant factor in this victory for sovereignty and... and... Puppies! And Christmas!

What politicians will say will depend v much on what they think British people want, so it's up to British people to make it clear in the next months, isn't it? Or politicians will assume that no freedom of movement is what people want.

Basically we are trying to guess what politicians will do, but they will do anything they think we (or you lot British people, more accurately) want. So it seems the answer to this thread is 'no, don't worry, it's ok, freedom of movement will end'.

fawful - it is possible to do without causing irreparable harm to our economy. we cannot have access to the single market without free movement - for one very simple reason, the other 27 member states will not let us.

politicians can make all the promises they like, it depends on the other EU member states.

sorry NOT possible!

That's what people have voted for, isn't it? They said it was worth it for being sovereign again.

yes - but people do not seem to have realised how it actually works...

there is a real lack of understanding how the EU and or EU law works. People also have no appreciation of our options post-Brexit and the compromises that brings.

If anybody voting leave seriously thought Farage and BoJo would actually destroy our economy and remove free movement, then more fool them. if you look at the wording they used, they have not actually promised a reduction in immigration.

Not yet, but now that the Tory leadership contest starts, they are all going to start to go for right-wing votes and my guess is that talks of the end of immigration start today. It's just going to get more and more difficult to appeal to racists and to not alienate anyone else...

'Allies of Johnson have said he would not seek a new general election and suggested he does see ending free movement as a red line, despite having suggested otherwise in a Telegraph column on Monday.'