The way things are going, nobody in the EU will be able to afford a car.
Freedom of movement is sacred to the eurocrats because they are trying to turn Europe into a single country. Now that the UK is creating as many new jobs as the whole of the rest of the EU, the logical result is that half the young people in Europe will have to live and work in the UK. There is no reason why the Brits should allow that to happen.
But the only recent example of a car company moving production within Europe is Ford and they actually moved from the UK (who are in the EU) to Turkey (who are outside the EU). Which kinda suggests that EU membership isnt the defining criteria about where you locate production.
Turkey is INSIDE the EU Custom's Union courtesy of a bilateral agreement which means they accept EU rules on the customs union.
It all comes down to the 'right negotiations' in the event of an out choice
So you said, but as I asked in my previous post: What do you consider "the right negotiations"?
but there is no need to assume it can't be done nor assume that because things are the way they are now (trade) then that cannot be changed. Sorry, but anything is possible and we are only dealing in speculation here
Yes, you are speculating. You're also employing the equivalent of the theist's argument ("just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist"). Forgive me if I don't find that form of argumentation particualrly compelling.
If I'm supposed to belive the narrative, espoused apparently by opponents of EU membership, that our successive Governments have failed us in diplomatic negotiations to the point that we are getting a raw deal out of our multilateral agreements - and that this has been happening consistently over the last forty years and more - why should I believe the same people when they say that we can tear up those agreements and negotiate an entirely new set of agreements with exactly the same allies, relying on the same cadre of diplomats and officials ... isn't there an old adage, "insanity is repeating the same task over and over again, expecting different results" - and that that deal will be any better than the current one?
and like the "not joining the Euro" disaster for the UK, as promised by business....... well that wasn't the case was it.
The anti-Euro argument had four telling points in its favour, though, of which none can be said about the case for leaving the EU.
One, we already had the Pound and were not being asked to make a leap in the dark by keeping it; indeed, the reverse was the case as we didn't really know how the Euro project would pan out. Now, it is opponents of EU membership who are asking us to make a leap of faith.
Two, the loss of control of interest rates was a killer argument - especially in light of the ERM debacle. Opponents of EU membership still have not found their killer argument.
Three, there was never any popular support for joining the Euro, even amongst many of those who were fairly strongly in favour of remaining in the EU. Opinion polls vary and health warnings apply, of course;, but in general recent polls show a plurality, and often a majority of under-65s, in favour of retaining our EU membership.
And four, despite there being contingency plans for Euro entry in case it did turn out to be "inevitable", no Government was going to countenance joining it in a hurry: Labour set its "five economic tests" which, as I joked ten years ago, included Gordon's assessment of the prevailing weather conditions in the Afterlife - the Tories, well and truly burned by Black Wednesday, ruled out the option altogether. The received wisdom of the Establishment was, therefore, against Euro entry - either in the short or the long term. Leaving the EU, on the other hand, flies in the face of that received Establishment wisdom.
So how much of what we are told is bs?
Well, there's an interesting philosophical question, but probably not one for the Politics forum....
As for Schengen, my reference was 'continent' not UK, but if you have passed various borders within the UK, Europe to UK to Europe travel is pretty much as Schengen already. Flights and Ferries, I have not been asked for my passport upon reaching destination for a very long time, just walk / drive through. It may be in our Governments hands, but is it happening enough?
That's a question for the Government. The point remains that the failure of our Government to do what it already has the power to do is not a reason to alter or abrogate our multilateral agreements.
It's about decreasing national identity by watering it down, mixing people of all diffent nations
Well excellent. Cannot wait. The sooner archaic concepts such as nation states disappear the better.
Seeing that pernicious concepts such as borders lead to nothing but envy and war, the sooner they are erased the better.
And before you jump at me, I make a difference between national identity (which I abhor) and cultural identity (which is great , and best preserved by being shared and being made accessible), and moreover I believe the two to be utterly unrelated.
That's not the reason I typed the question. Rhetorical and applies to your posts.
Rather than ask rhetorical questions, which is the device of the knave - for it allows one to avoid being caught out in a lie if one allows one's interlocutor to fill in the blanks with common misinformation, and gives one plausible deniability if one's rhetorical device is shot down - have the courage of your convictions and come right out and say what you mean.
In any event, your "rhetorical question" - if interpreted correctly, though there are not too many plausible alternative interpretations - is illustrative of faulty reasoning, because it does not compare like with like: a customs union between the EU and a country that has a long-standing application to join, is not really comparable to any hypothetical negotiated settlement between the EU and a country that wants to put further distance between itself and the EU.
Nor is it immediately obvious that the kind of arrangement Turkey has with the EU would suit the UK or be acceptable to EU opponents, nor that the EU would countenance such an arrangement with an exiting member. Opponents of EU membership have at one time or another espoused EEA membership, bilateral agreements like Switzerland ... both have their downsides, it's unclear whether either option would be open to the UK in practice, and it's rare to hear advocates for those positions nowadays. The relationship between the EU and Turkey, likewise, is bound to have its downsides: TANSTAAFL.
It might not be - but at least we would be trying something different, all you seem to want to do is sit back and watch the continual decline in wages.
It might not be - but at least we would be trying something different, all you seem to want to do is sit back and watch the continual decline in wages.
Ah, the famous politician's syllogism:
1. Something Must Be Done;
2. This Is Something;
3. Therefore, Let's Do It.
Rather than ask rhetorical questions, which is the device of the knave - for it allows one to avoid being caught out in a lie if one allows one's interlocutor to fill in the blanks with common misinformation, and gives one plausible deniability if one's rhetorical device is shot down - have the courage of your convictions and come right out and say what you mean.
In any event, your "rhetorical question" - if interpreted correctly, though there are not too many plausible alternative interpretations - is illustrative of faulty reasoning, because it does not compare like with like: a customs union between the EU and a country that has a long-standing application to join, is not really comparable to any hypothetical negotiated settlement between the EU and a country that wants to put further distance between itself and the EU.
My convictions have been typed:
Originally Posted by tim59
Well we keep hearing close the borders, leave the EU and wages will rise, i dont believe that nonsense at all.
No, nor do I. It's all nonsense to ensure you and I don't ever actually have any truth. It ensures you and I fight with words and all the time that you and I are doing that we are being stiffed (look at Majlis's post for proof really). The EU is about business, not people. The sky will not fall down if we leave the EU just is it will not fall down if we stay, but i'd like the people of the UK to be the architect of our own prosperity / demise rather than having that prosperity / demise (in effect) dictated to us via our own government. As I said originally and specific to the thread, open borders is my biggest bug bear, just not right and we are basically a "Charlie Hebdo" away from realising that.
It all comes down to the 'right negotiations' in the event of an out choice, but there is no need to assume it can't be done nor assume that because things are the way they are now (trade) then that cannot be changed. Sorry, but anything is possible and we are only dealing in speculation here and like the "not joining the Euro" disaster for the UK, as promised by business....... well that wasn't the case was it.
Turkey in light of the new information. Your position is based solely on how things are, but it does not have to be that way. Reference to the 1970s will bring out a 'how things are now' and 'not what was agreed back then' route. All of your convictions are speculation as much as mine. Deals will be struck in the event of an out (which i don't think would happen under referendum) else 'tit for tat' could occur of the ilk I gave.
Your belief regarding my rhetorical approach is fine, but that information, 'Turkey is not a member but has negotiated a trade deal' covers it. It can be done, the sky will not fall down. I am happy to admit and have admitted it's all speculation, but so is your stance. We do not know what the actual definite will be, but it does appear the people of the EU has a growing hostility towards what is apparantly one big business deal in the name of profit and profit is not turning out to be the be all and and end all.
(I also do not want to type elongated answers all the time, am conscious we are off topic, although the argument interdispersed among our posts is that our inclusion of the EU and free movement creates a suppressed wage effect)
Ah, the famous politician's syllogism:
1. Something Must Be Done;
2. This Is Something;
3. Therefore, Let's Do It.
I've never understood this idea that Politics is not about making peoples lives better - if something is making people worse off then why not try and change it, simply putting up with it simply to protect the 'project' is something that has never appealed.
But the only recent example of a car company moving production within Europe is Ford and they actually moved from the UK (who are in the EU) to Turkey (who are outside the EU). Which kinda suggests that EU membership isnt the defining criteria about where you locate production.
I'm pretty sure that Ford got a cheap loan from the EU bank or whatever to build the plant in Turkey, something like £150m?
There is a key distinction between Turkey and an EU exiting UK, namely, that Turkey has repeatedly said it wants to join the EU. Hence the EU has an interest in helping a potential future member. It would have no such interest in an ex-member.
Also, the customs union does not cover one of the more important UK businesses - Financial Services. Still I am sure that the French wouldn't take advantage of our us, aren't you? :-)
Originally Posted by tim59
Well we keep hearing close the borders, leave the EU and wages will rise, i dont believe that nonsense at all.
No, nor do I. It's all nonsense to ensure you and I don't ever actually have any truth. It ensures you and I fight with words and all the time that you and I are doing that we are being stiffed (look at Majlis's post for proof really). The EU is about business, not people. The sky will not fall down if we leave the EU just is it will not fall down if we stay, but i'd like the people of the UK to be the architect of our own prosperity / demise rather than having that prosperity / demise (in effect) dictated to us via our own government. As I said originally and specific to the thread, open borders is my biggest bug bear, just not right and we are basically a "Charlie Hebdo" away from realising that.
It all comes down to the 'right negotiations' in the event of an out choice, but there is no need to assume it can't be done nor assume that because things are the way they are now (trade) then that cannot be changed. Sorry, but anything is possible and we are only dealing in speculation here and like the "not joining the Euro" disaster for the UK, as promised by business....... well that wasn't the case was it.
Turkey in light of the new information. Your position is based solely on how things are, but it does not have to be that way. Reference to the 1970s will bring out a 'how things are now' and 'not what was agreed back then' route. All of your convictions are speculation as much as mine. Deals will be struck in the event of an out (which i don't think would happen under referendum) else 'tit for tat' could occur of the ilk I gave.
Your belief regarding my rhetorical approach is fine, but that information, 'Turkey is not a member but has negotiated a trade deal' covers it. It can be done, the sky will not fall down. I am happy to admit and have admitted it's all speculation, but so is your stance. We do not know what the actual definite will be, but it does appear the people of the EU has a growing hostility towards what is apparantly one big business deal in the name of profit and profit is not turning out to be the be all and and end all.
(I also do not want to type elongated answers all the time, am conscious we are off topic, although the argument interdispersed among our posts is that our inclusion of the EU and free movement creates a suppressed wage effect)
If my position is based on "how things are" then I make no apology for it: I like my stated positions to be grounded in the known and the supportable, not in the unknown and the speculative (unless I attach suitable health warnings that make it clear where I am speculating, which I generally do).
You say my convictions and my stance are speculation. This looks like nothing more than a fallacious tu quoque argument; and unless you can actually identify any such speculation correctly, then this looks like pure deflection on your part. I would be interested to see you identify any statements of mine in this exchange that fall into the category of speculation.
You do not know what, if any, deals might be struck in the event of an 'out' vote. You cannot make any assurances that they will be fairer to the UK than the current settlement. As soon as you say something will happen that you cannot possibly know will happen, you're on a sticky wicket.
Turkey's situation is not new: the Ankara Agreement was drawn up in 1995. Nor is it analogous to the UK's, on the grounds that Turkey is an applicant state to the EU, whereas a post-Brexit UK clearly would not be. That's a pretty fundamental difference that affects the whole basis of negotiations. As such, asserting that "it can be done" on the basis of Turkey's relationship with the EU is simply not comparing like with like.
Saying "it can be done" and "the sky will not fall" does not help. Firstly, they're straw men: I don't recall anyone saying outright that "it can't be done" or "the sky will fall", so you're really having an argument against imaginary figures in your own head. Secondly, they're bare assertions without substance: you don't know what the outcome of any negotiatons might be, and failure or a raw deal are possible outcomes (though how probable remains unknown). And thirdly (and here I do speculate), I think it'll take some more concrete assurances than merely saying that we're not going to end up with a country looking like Mad Max 2, which few if anyone claimed in the first place.
Could the single market really function effectively without the ability of workers to move freely within it? Surely this could seriously affect the ability for companies to supply services in other countries, if not goods?
I've never understood this idea that Politics is not about making peoples lives better - if something is making people worse off then why not try and change it, simply putting up with it simply to protect the 'project' is something that has never appealed.
Because, as every good (small-c) conservative knows, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. And the multilateral agreements we have that make up "the EU" are so wide in scope that it is a facile argument to point to just a few limited aspects of those agreements and say "we don't think this bit is working in our favour, therefore let's pull the plug on the whole deal".
The extent to which our membership of the EU has an impact on wages is up for debate - it may have a more immediate impact, but if workers are paid over the odds for the same goods and services, those goods and services will get more expensive compared to goods and services from elsewhere, and throwing up protectionist barriers just makes everything less affordable. And if people can't afford to buy those goods and services, those workers won't merely be poorly paid: they'll be out of jobs altogether.
Which is why you have fruit-growers in the East Midlands and East Anglia who are concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from some quarters. Understandably, they don't want to go out of business.
You said, "Just like there isn't huge redistribution of the population between the regions of the UK." .................... I dispute that, Corwall being one of the best examples to show that your statement is bunkum. Now who collected the data........who was it now......... eeerrmmmmm, Oh yeh, the 2011 Census, is that decent enough data source for you? While i'm here (first question asked) how do you know definitely what will happen if the UK should leave the EU?
Look, I don't really want to type like an a**e and pressure you to back your statements really, but I cannot stand 'facts' thrown out which are quite provably not facts. If you want to fight against UKIP / Farage then used reasoned argument and not bunkum. However in light of your jump from me showing a statement of yours to be bunkum, to you believing that means I want to build a wall around Cornwall demonstrates ......... well what does it demonstrate?
My point was that the population of Cornwall grew between 1961 (before free movement within the EU) and today (both censor data), which is to be expected as people live longer and there has been net immigration to the UK.
But you said the indigenous population fell a huge degree (assuming most people in Cornwall were indigenous in 1961). So either cornish people had zero kids for the last 50 years, or they moved out of Cornwall and were replaced by non-Cornish people.
So if you think the low level of indigenous people in Cornwall is a problem, I suggested a wall to keep them in. A lot of kippers confuse free movement with immigration, but free movement is a two way street. People can come and go between Cornwall and the rest of the UK, and the general population has followed the pattern of the rest of the UK. No major redistribution.
On the other hand, I've found nothing in the censor data about indigenous people, so it could be that you're just wrong.
It might not be - but at least we would be trying something different, all you seem to want to do is sit back and watch the continual decline in wages.
Could the single market really function effectively without the ability of workers to move freely within it? Surely this could seriously affect the ability for companies to supply services in other countries, if not goods?
Most of the benefit of a single market comes from free trade in goods and free movement of capital. Services are inherently more difficult to trade - it is far more difficult for an estate agent to sell houses in a foreign country than it is to sell jewellery abroad.
The large scale movement of people brings more problems than benefits. 30% of Romania's doctors have left to work abroad, while Britain's NHS struggles to cope with an influx of people.
Most of the benefit of a single market comes from free trade in goods and free movement of capital. Services are inherently more difficult to trade - it is far more difficult for an estate agent to sell houses in a foreign country than it is to sell jewellery abroad.
The large scale movement of people brings more problems than benefits. 30% of Romania's doctors have left to work abroad, while Britain's NHS struggles to cope with an influx of people.
But we have thousand of uk doctors leaving the uk., New figures have revealed 4,700 doctors have applied for certificates to enable them to work abroad. Recruitment specialists said they were mostly heading to Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Comments
Turkey is INSIDE the EU Custom's Union courtesy of a bilateral agreement which means they accept EU rules on the customs union.
So Turkey has a negotiated trade deal with the EU but is not a member?
So you said, but as I asked in my previous post: What do you consider "the right negotiations"?
Yes, you are speculating. You're also employing the equivalent of the theist's argument ("just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist"). Forgive me if I don't find that form of argumentation particualrly compelling.
If I'm supposed to belive the narrative, espoused apparently by opponents of EU membership, that our successive Governments have failed us in diplomatic negotiations to the point that we are getting a raw deal out of our multilateral agreements - and that this has been happening consistently over the last forty years and more - why should I believe the same people when they say that we can tear up those agreements and negotiate an entirely new set of agreements with exactly the same allies, relying on the same cadre of diplomats and officials ... isn't there an old adage, "insanity is repeating the same task over and over again, expecting different results" - and that that deal will be any better than the current one?
The anti-Euro argument had four telling points in its favour, though, of which none can be said about the case for leaving the EU.
One, we already had the Pound and were not being asked to make a leap in the dark by keeping it; indeed, the reverse was the case as we didn't really know how the Euro project would pan out. Now, it is opponents of EU membership who are asking us to make a leap of faith.
Two, the loss of control of interest rates was a killer argument - especially in light of the ERM debacle. Opponents of EU membership still have not found their killer argument.
Three, there was never any popular support for joining the Euro, even amongst many of those who were fairly strongly in favour of remaining in the EU. Opinion polls vary and health warnings apply, of course;, but in general recent polls show a plurality, and often a majority of under-65s, in favour of retaining our EU membership.
And four, despite there being contingency plans for Euro entry in case it did turn out to be "inevitable", no Government was going to countenance joining it in a hurry: Labour set its "five economic tests" which, as I joked ten years ago, included Gordon's assessment of the prevailing weather conditions in the Afterlife - the Tories, well and truly burned by Black Wednesday, ruled out the option altogether. The received wisdom of the Establishment was, therefore, against Euro entry - either in the short or the long term. Leaving the EU, on the other hand, flies in the face of that received Establishment wisdom.
Well, there's an interesting philosophical question, but probably not one for the Politics forum....
That's a question for the Government. The point remains that the failure of our Government to do what it already has the power to do is not a reason to alter or abrogate our multilateral agreements.
Quite - being inside the EU isn't really helping is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_Customs_Union
Well excellent. Cannot wait. The sooner archaic concepts such as nation states disappear the better.
Seeing that pernicious concepts such as borders lead to nothing but envy and war, the sooner they are erased the better.
And before you jump at me, I make a difference between national identity (which I abhor) and cultural identity (which is great , and best preserved by being shared and being made accessible), and moreover I believe the two to be utterly unrelated.
That's not the reason I typed the question. Rhetorical and applies to your posts.
Why would it be any differant outside the EU
Rather than ask rhetorical questions, which is the device of the knave - for it allows one to avoid being caught out in a lie if one allows one's interlocutor to fill in the blanks with common misinformation, and gives one plausible deniability if one's rhetorical device is shot down - have the courage of your convictions and come right out and say what you mean.
In any event, your "rhetorical question" - if interpreted correctly, though there are not too many plausible alternative interpretations - is illustrative of faulty reasoning, because it does not compare like with like: a customs union between the EU and a country that has a long-standing application to join, is not really comparable to any hypothetical negotiated settlement between the EU and a country that wants to put further distance between itself and the EU.
Nor is it immediately obvious that the kind of arrangement Turkey has with the EU would suit the UK or be acceptable to EU opponents, nor that the EU would countenance such an arrangement with an exiting member. Opponents of EU membership have at one time or another espoused EEA membership, bilateral agreements like Switzerland ... both have their downsides, it's unclear whether either option would be open to the UK in practice, and it's rare to hear advocates for those positions nowadays. The relationship between the EU and Turkey, likewise, is bound to have its downsides: TANSTAAFL.
It might not be - but at least we would be trying something different, all you seem to want to do is sit back and watch the continual decline in wages.
Ah, the famous politician's syllogism:
1. Something Must Be Done;
2. This Is Something;
3. Therefore, Let's Do It.
My convictions have been typed:
Originally Posted by tim59
Well we keep hearing close the borders, leave the EU and wages will rise, i dont believe that nonsense at all.
No, nor do I. It's all nonsense to ensure you and I don't ever actually have any truth. It ensures you and I fight with words and all the time that you and I are doing that we are being stiffed (look at Majlis's post for proof really). The EU is about business, not people. The sky will not fall down if we leave the EU just is it will not fall down if we stay, but i'd like the people of the UK to be the architect of our own prosperity / demise rather than having that prosperity / demise (in effect) dictated to us via our own government. As I said originally and specific to the thread, open borders is my biggest bug bear, just not right and we are basically a "Charlie Hebdo" away from realising that.
It all comes down to the 'right negotiations' in the event of an out choice, but there is no need to assume it can't be done nor assume that because things are the way they are now (trade) then that cannot be changed. Sorry, but anything is possible and we are only dealing in speculation here and like the "not joining the Euro" disaster for the UK, as promised by business....... well that wasn't the case was it.
Turkey in light of the new information. Your position is based solely on how things are, but it does not have to be that way. Reference to the 1970s will bring out a 'how things are now' and 'not what was agreed back then' route. All of your convictions are speculation as much as mine. Deals will be struck in the event of an out (which i don't think would happen under referendum) else 'tit for tat' could occur of the ilk I gave.
Your belief regarding my rhetorical approach is fine, but that information, 'Turkey is not a member but has negotiated a trade deal' covers it. It can be done, the sky will not fall down. I am happy to admit and have admitted it's all speculation, but so is your stance. We do not know what the actual definite will be, but it does appear the people of the EU has a growing hostility towards what is apparantly one big business deal in the name of profit and profit is not turning out to be the be all and and end all.
(I also do not want to type elongated answers all the time, am conscious we are off topic, although the argument interdispersed among our posts is that our inclusion of the EU and free movement creates a suppressed wage effect)
I've never understood this idea that Politics is not about making peoples lives better - if something is making people worse off then why not try and change it, simply putting up with it simply to protect the 'project' is something that has never appealed.
I'm pretty sure that Ford got a cheap loan from the EU bank or whatever to build the plant in Turkey, something like £150m?
it was 150 million euros (about 80 million quid), at a very cheap interest rate.
Also, the customs union does not cover one of the more important UK businesses - Financial Services. Still I am sure that the French wouldn't take advantage of our us, aren't you? :-)
If my position is based on "how things are" then I make no apology for it: I like my stated positions to be grounded in the known and the supportable, not in the unknown and the speculative (unless I attach suitable health warnings that make it clear where I am speculating, which I generally do).
You say my convictions and my stance are speculation. This looks like nothing more than a fallacious tu quoque argument; and unless you can actually identify any such speculation correctly, then this looks like pure deflection on your part. I would be interested to see you identify any statements of mine in this exchange that fall into the category of speculation.
You do not know what, if any, deals might be struck in the event of an 'out' vote. You cannot make any assurances that they will be fairer to the UK than the current settlement. As soon as you say something will happen that you cannot possibly know will happen, you're on a sticky wicket.
Turkey's situation is not new: the Ankara Agreement was drawn up in 1995. Nor is it analogous to the UK's, on the grounds that Turkey is an applicant state to the EU, whereas a post-Brexit UK clearly would not be. That's a pretty fundamental difference that affects the whole basis of negotiations. As such, asserting that "it can be done" on the basis of Turkey's relationship with the EU is simply not comparing like with like.
Saying "it can be done" and "the sky will not fall" does not help. Firstly, they're straw men: I don't recall anyone saying outright that "it can't be done" or "the sky will fall", so you're really having an argument against imaginary figures in your own head. Secondly, they're bare assertions without substance: you don't know what the outcome of any negotiatons might be, and failure or a raw deal are possible outcomes (though how probable remains unknown). And thirdly (and here I do speculate), I think it'll take some more concrete assurances than merely saying that we're not going to end up with a country looking like Mad Max 2, which few if anyone claimed in the first place.
Because, as every good (small-c) conservative knows, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. And the multilateral agreements we have that make up "the EU" are so wide in scope that it is a facile argument to point to just a few limited aspects of those agreements and say "we don't think this bit is working in our favour, therefore let's pull the plug on the whole deal".
The extent to which our membership of the EU has an impact on wages is up for debate - it may have a more immediate impact, but if workers are paid over the odds for the same goods and services, those goods and services will get more expensive compared to goods and services from elsewhere, and throwing up protectionist barriers just makes everything less affordable. And if people can't afford to buy those goods and services, those workers won't merely be poorly paid: they'll be out of jobs altogether.
Which is why you have fruit-growers in the East Midlands and East Anglia who are concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from some quarters. Understandably, they don't want to go out of business.
My point was that the population of Cornwall grew between 1961 (before free movement within the EU) and today (both censor data), which is to be expected as people live longer and there has been net immigration to the UK.
But you said the indigenous population fell a huge degree (assuming most people in Cornwall were indigenous in 1961). So either cornish people had zero kids for the last 50 years, or they moved out of Cornwall and were replaced by non-Cornish people.
So if you think the low level of indigenous people in Cornwall is a problem, I suggested a wall to keep them in. A lot of kippers confuse free movement with immigration, but free movement is a two way street. People can come and go between Cornwall and the rest of the UK, and the general population has followed the pattern of the rest of the UK. No major redistribution.
On the other hand, I've found nothing in the censor data about indigenous people, so it could be that you're just wrong.
Wages are not going to get better, the uk has to compete in the global market, why would any buisness increase wages for uk workers when you can get the job done cheaper in lots of other counties, and these countries can be in or out of the EU. You only have to look at india. India to overtake China as world's fastest growing large economy. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2015%2F01%2F21%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Findia-china-fastest-growth%2F&ei=5ro7VfXdAsXdaqrzgOgP&usg=AFQjCNEDy5B_65UA1UOzAAc270ERRrK52w&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s
Most of the benefit of a single market comes from free trade in goods and free movement of capital. Services are inherently more difficult to trade - it is far more difficult for an estate agent to sell houses in a foreign country than it is to sell jewellery abroad.
The large scale movement of people brings more problems than benefits. 30% of Romania's doctors have left to work abroad, while Britain's NHS struggles to cope with an influx of people.
But we have thousand of uk doctors leaving the uk., New figures have revealed 4,700 doctors have applied for certificates to enable them to work abroad. Recruitment specialists said they were mostly heading to Australia, New Zealand and Canada.