EMR

An article from 2003, say no more,

Red Eric

Because on the one hand you're saying that free movement must end and on the other you're saying that there always has been and always will be free movement.

Freedom of movement has a particular meaning in relation to the rights citizens of EU member states have within the territory - and as you at least appeared to acknowledge above, it is not totally without restrictions.

On the other hand, the imposition of requirements for eg the obtaining of a work visa prior to entering a menber state or a minimum salary requirement in excess of the national minimum wage or a requirement in order to obtain permission to remain would be clear violations of those rights.

Bipat

That is when they were discussing the draft constitution that ended up as the Lisbon Treaty, which we have been discussing!!! The Treaty which is still in force!
Dave/Dee asked for a link to show the wording of the draft had been changed, my link demonstrates this.

Bipat

You are confirming that movement between countries that has always taken place and will continue with restrictions, as with all countries--is different from free movement and its particular meaning with regards movement and rights between EU countries.

iano

Of course there was a vote at that time. In Parliament, voted for overwhelmingly by our elected reps, passed in The Lords by our unelected reps and granted Royal Assent by another unelected rep.

Like you, Stuart Wheeler (a 'kipper) once claimed the government was bound by an election promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He went to the High Court (not the ECJ) and the case was rejected, he even appealed and it was rejected once again. I doubt he keeps banging on about the claim to this day.

DaveLovesDee

Nope, your link hasn't shown the draft language being changed. It demonstrates that some wanted it changed. Unless you can quote something I've missed.

But this is a common thing with you. You misrepresent what people are saying to claim they mean something other than what they actually said.

Bipat

A previous post stated the public voted, I was pointing out the public did not vote.
The labour manifesto certainly indicated a referendum, a change of some of the wording and the Treaty title apparently negated this.

Bipat

Well the final draft and the subsequent Lisbon Treaty uses the word "community" doesn't it!! How is that misrepresentation?

(I wasn't going to give links to both assume, you have read them!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...European_Union
refs14/15/16

Giscard's 'federal' ruse to protect Blair - Telegraph

amideislas

I think it's again worth reminding everyone of the fundamental issues here.

The issue is that free unfettered membership to the single market and customs union comes with "obligations". The four freedoms are amongst them. All those with unfettered access to the single market , whether EEA, EFTA, or EU members accept those conditions. And rightfully so.

Britain likes to argue that it should be granted that same access but without subscribing to any obligations. Britain also argues that it doesn't matter, because a free trade agreement (such as the EU has with many non-member countries) will provide that same access. But in practice, it's far from that.

But OK, Britain can agree to say, a Canada-like agreement, but that's not the same as EEA, EFTA, or EU membership, and imposes a number of restrictions, not only on goods trade, but particularly on services, the UK's largest export. And that basically diminishes the point of basing a business in Britain for the purpose of accessing the single market. And a LOT of Britain's largest businesses are based in Britain specifically for that reason (e.g., auto industry, finance, etc). It's precisely what's enabled Britain to punch so far above its weight so far.

That's the basic problem. It isn't just about trade. The knock-on effects run deep. And Britain just isn't structured to work in isolation. Large and aging population, few natural resources, a relatively small manufacturing base that will inevitably shrink when it departs from the single market. Not to mention that it will lose about 50 trade agreements in the process.

Sure, Britain can "go it alone", but any rhetoric suggesting it will somehow be "better" is wishful thinking. And all because of a fleeting nationalist ideology.

Remember, this isn't like Trump. They'll vote him out eventually. But Brexit is permanent.

Rafa

Just wait until you have to stand in the non-EU queue!!

Hell of a step backward for the sake of 'principle'.

DaveLovesDee

That's why my non-EU spouse pays £9.99 for the Premium Passport Control at Gatwick.

EMR

British drug companies planning to build up stockpiles in EU countries as a counter against new post brexit regulations which could impact on UK exports .( Sunday Times )

At least business seems to have a plan.

EMR

Quoting from a brexit newspaper does not prove your point.

The fact is that the wording was changed to satisfy those concerned at federalism being included in the treaty.
You should look up the meaning of federal and community.
Being a law student once you will know how important the meanings of words are in treaties and legal documents.

Bipat

So you accept the wording was changed? That was my point!!

I know the meaning of the words.

Just for your own interest why don't you look up 'federalism and the EU'. Then you can choose your own references.

(At the time of the news reports the word Brexit had not been coined.)

EMR

The telegraph has always been a Eurosceptic, now brexit newspaper.

I knows the difference between federalism and community, do you ?

The Labour manifesto years before your link did not refer to community, yes or no.