Is it time for Hard Brexiter Tories to vote Labour?

[OwlHoot]

So why don't we just insist, as EU rules allow, ...

Because EU rules have a way of changing - Remember their mantra "Ever closer union"? For them those aren't empty words.

And this isn't paranoia, it's been happening for forty years and with no signs of slowing, if anything the opposite.

A goat being strangled by a python might not worry at first, but the coils relentlessly become ever tighter ...

[BlasterBates]

Because EU rules have a way of changing - Remember their mantra "Ever closer union"? For them those aren't empty words.

And this isn't paranoia, it's been happening for forty years and with no signs of slowing, if anything the opposite.

A goat being strangled by a python might not worry at first, but the coils relentlessly become ever tighter ...

Well the UK does have a veto, an awful lot stuff that simply doesn't apply to Britain because they didn't want it. After a Soft Brexit the UK will simply receive a fax with the new changes and date to be changed by "or else". I lived in Switzerland and they used quake with fear every time Brussels changed with rules, then they would be summoned to Brussels to be handed over the "changes". They never voted on Schengen, it was simply shoved down their throat.

[sasguru]

Because EU rules have a way of changing - Remember their mantra "Ever closer union"? For them those aren't empty words.

And this isn't paranoia, it's been happening for forty years and with no signs of slowing, if anything the opposite.

A goat being strangled by a python might not worry at first, but the coils relentlessly become ever tighter ...

Complete and utter bollux.
There were and are EU rules to prevent freeloading EU FOM.
If you don't believe me try and move to Switzerland (which while not in the EU, nominally has to abide by EU FOM rules) without a good job offer.
And we refused to implement them, then blamed the EU when every man and his dog came here.

[Big Blue Plymouth]

So why don't we just insist, as EU rules allow, that the only EU people who can come in (1) have private health insurance and (2) have a job offer that is highly paid enough that means no reliance on the state, even for tax credits?

And have other rules and regs like Switzerland, which means they only get the cream?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[sal]

Primarily, no freedom of movement from EU countries.

(and yes, I know we are not currently in Schengen, and that UK governments including the present Tories have let the torrent of immigration continue unchecked. But all the same we must have control of our borders.)

So from 2010 to 2015 cutting net migration to 10'000s was in the Tory manifesto, TM as in charge of delivering it. Naturally she couldn't do much about the 200'000 odd EU net migration, but the question is what was done to reduce the 200'000 odd non-EU net migration? The answer is nothing.

Yet the Brexit voting mugs somehow believed (and continue to believe) that somehow after Brexit something will be done to address the EU net migration.

The truth is that the ageing UK population relies on immigrants too much to allow for net migration of 10'000s, even if you gain the ability to legislate for it on paper.

This is exactly why Brexit will be a disaster, because it is abundantly clear that freedom of movement will continue after what is now clearly going to be a Soft Brexit, after the Tories lost the GE, but a substantial number of companies will be relocating out of Britain, so leaving Britain poorer but still with freedom of movement.

Britain will have no influence on rules and regulations and will govern by "fax machine", as Norway does.

That's the Master plan - make UK poor, so EU migrants have zero incentive to come to the UK - the only realistic way to achieve net migration in 10'000s

[VectraMan]

BTW the EEA agreement also includes an "emergency brake" on immigration:

Immigration: the EEA's "emergency brake"

Although "free movement of workers" is an essential part of the EEA treaty, there is a fallback position if the level of immigration is considered too high.This is set out in Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, which refer to the "Safeguard Measures" which permit the parties unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature arise and are liable to persist.

[northernladyuk]

Because EU rules have a way of changing - Remember their mantra "Ever closer union"? For them those aren't empty words.

So if the EU rules change, then the UK would leave. Why leave now when the freedom of movement rules aren't a problem?

[OwlHoot]

So if the EU rules change, then the UK would leave. Why leave now when the freedom of movement rules aren't a problem?

Chortle! Do you really think any Government would give us another referendum for that, especially after the result of the last one?!

The EU referendum was only offered in absolute desperation, by a PM who was convinced the result would be a win for the Remain side anyway.

[OwlHoot]

So from 2010 to 2015 cutting net migration to 10'000s was in the Tory manifesto, TM as in charge of delivering it. Naturally she couldn't do much about the 200'000 odd EU net migration, but the question is what was done to reduce the 200'000 odd non-EU net migration? The answer is nothing.

Yet the Brexit voting mugs somehow believed (and continue to believe) that somehow after Brexit something will be done to address the EU net migration. ...

I agree the Tories have failed miserably to get immigration under control, despite this being one of their manifesto pledges (although no doubt the Human Rights act played a large part in obstructing their ineffectual efforts).

I'd also concede that a Corbyn government would be equally willfully useless, and probably even worse than the Tories.

All the same, the fact remains that a future government with a will to stem the flow would at least have the full uncompromised authority to do this.

[northernladyuk]

Chortle! Do you really think any Government would give us another referendum for that, especially after the result of the last one?!

The EU referendum was only offered in absolute desperation, by a PM who was convinced the result would be a win for the Remain side anyway.

The government can propose a referendum, but cannot grant one - that is parliament's role. I thought Brexiteers believed in parliamentary democracy. Parliament will always retain the power to leave the EU with or without a referendum. What is the problem (apart, of course, from your obvious cretinism)?