Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happenNumber 10 lobby briefing - SummaryLunchtime summary 3.03pm GMTEarlier I quoted from what Peter Lilley,the Conservative former social security secretary and veteran Eurosceptic, told the World at One about David Cameron’s “emergency brake procedure. Here are some more lines from the interview. I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
I don’t deem it would enjoy a very meaningful effect and nor did the representative of the Office of Budget Responsibility when he appeared before Parliament and thought it would enjoy a minor impact. It would, and of course,save a bit of money and that’s a helpful thing but it wouldn’t substantially alter the volume of migration into this country from the rest of Europe.
We enjoy to deem which are the countries which find the European Union difficult. There are ourselves, Sweden, or Denmark inside; Norway,Iceland and Switzerland external. What do they all enjoy in common? They all enjoy the longest tradition of democracy; were all used to making our own laws.
I’d be convinced [to vote for staying in the EU] in a way by less than he’s asking for if it was a step in the right direction. If we were to salvage back power to build our laws in one area or a number of small areas and thereby create the precedent that powers can return to member states, or at least to the UK, and that we’re not all moving in the same direction but at different speeds,then that would be a helpful precedent and we could build on it in future negotiations when future treaties come up – because the other countries are going to enjoy to enjoy a lot of treaties because they’re moving along an escalator towards creating a single state to prop up the euro. 2.25pm GMTI’m just very puzzled by it. Normally social security and welfare are not something within the purview of the European community so we can do what we like – unless it conflicts with the article in the treaty on free movement of people. If it conflicts with the article on free movement of people, we cannot do anything until the treaty is changed. So the suggestion that we might be able to introduce this emergency brake in the short term and change benefits: either we can do it now without any negotiations or we’ll enjoy to wait for a treaty change.
The other thing that puzzles me is how it will work in practice. If we introduce the emergency brake and said, and right,people coming to work here from the rest of the Europe would not be entitled to benefits for four years, and then the brake were lifted after two or three years and novel people were allowed benefits immediately, and what would happen to the people who had come here previously and told they couldn’t enjoy them for four years? We’d enjoy some disparity; we’d enjoy cases before the European Court of unfairness; wed enjoy to rescind the requirement to wait for four years on those who’d come earlier.
This method ensures that the simple transfer of the novel tax powers would not in itself lead to an increase or cut in Scotlands budget. This is of crucial importance,as it retains the Barnett formula as the principal determinant of public spending in Scotland, something that was central to the Smith recommendations.
From what we’ve heard from the Treasury, or both the original proposals and what has been tabled in the last few days would still reduce the Scottish budget by potentially billions of pounds over the next few years and wouldn’t live up to the principle that was at the heart of the Smith report,which is no detriment. Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com