The EU are rotten to the Apple core
Will the EU ever learn? the recent decision over demanding Apple pay 13bn Euros to the Irish Government over a deal apparently done between the two suggests that after Brexit and other recent difficulties, the EU has reverted to type. Whenever the EU has a crisis it concludes despite all the evidence that the answer is more of the EU. The decision has managed to offend both sides and the Irish Government are intending to appeal. They should be applauded for doing so, it would have been easy for them to just accept the money, but they have chosen to fight for the principal of national freedom over tax affairs before their own immediate interest.
As for the EU, it reinforces every dislikable aspect of the institution. They believe they can interfere in affairs as important as tax then there are no no-go areas for the EU Commission any longer. They have showed their hatred of freedom and liberty, their contempt for democracy and national Governments, their appetite for an EU Superstate and lust for power.Their arrogance and inability to learn or change. As for Apple, if they find EU is closed for business, I can think of one nation that most certainly is not.
Prominent Remain supporters are changing their tune
One interesting development of the last week or so is the sea change among prominent remain supporters. Now this is not true of all, you still have Tony Blair telling French radio stations we may stay in the EU and the ludicrous Monet Professor Micheal Dougan and his academia friends are still spouting about how the result of the Referendum is not valid from their University ivory towers where the real world is a distant concept. However their clearly has been a change. Prominent Conservative MP on the remain side Anna Soubry told Channel 4 News this week that she accepts there will not be a 2nd Referendum and argued strongly for Free Movement at the start of a push from those on her side of the argument to push for the EEA or Norway post Brexit model.
There are others too. Times leader writer Oliver Kamm (The Times weekday edition leader backed remain) responded in a tweet to an article in the New Statesman that Remainers needed to keep up the pressure regarding pointing out (what they see) as the costs of Brexit in order to push for the EEA option. This was re-tweeted by high profile Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. Toynbee later promoted the ‘March For Europe’ by tweeting ‘No-One knows what Brexit means – but the 48% want to stay close.” Note the word close, a couple of weeks ago Toynbee would not have included that word, confirming that for her, the fight for her preferred EEA option has also begun. When you have a Murdoch press leader writer and the high priestess of Guardian Leftism agreeing, you know something is happening. They are no longer fighting to stay in the EU but for their post Brexit preference. This weakens the voice of those like Doughan, to whom the likes of Kamm and Toynbee may see as an irritation to what is now the real debate. Whether you agree with the EEA option or not, the fact these Remainers who spent weeks virtually mourning the result are now joining the post Brexit debate is something we all should welcome.
The Freedom of Movement misconception
One aspect of the upcoming debate on migration as the Brexit negotiations begin is the difference between freedom of movement for workers and unrestricted freedom of movement. It has ben argued by people who were on both sides of the debate, particularly those arguing for the EEA Option, rightly in my view, that freedom of movement for workers has befitted the UK. It would be a policy I would favour us implementing, that if someone coming to the UK will be worker and has a job lined up, they should be allowed to come to the UK freely. This frankly could apply not just to the EU countries, but the World. However that is not the EU position.
The EU requires freedom of movement full stop. I living in Nottingham, could move to Ljubljana, or Bratislava and nobody could stop me regardless of my status while we remain in the EU. That of course is nonsense, and the ability to flit across boarders unrestricted undoubtedly increases the risk of terrorism with it. The reason for this EU policy is because it is a part of the creation of Europe being treated as a country and was always intended to soften us up for further integration. In order to look for the best outcome for Britain, it will be important freedom of movement for workers, for which a strong case can be made and unrestricted freedom of movement as set by the EU, for which the argument even for me Libertarian like me, who in theory would love to support total free movement, falls flat on many practical grounds, are not confused. I fear they will be all too often, potentially weakening the argument for a better immigration policy and will be used by those with various agenda to skew and cheapen the debate one way or another.