Brexit

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

So where would you stand on the UK becoming a US state?

Put the realistic prospect of such a deal on the table and I'll let you know...:)

In general terms though, I'm in favour of greater integration into ever larger unions, so long as the benefits outweigh the costs, which to me for the UK and EU they clearly do.

schneckster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But the reason I support EU membership is the same reason I support Scotland staying in the UK.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

So given the immense economic and social benefits of staying in, and the risks and downsides of leaving, then on any objective measure of risk/return the benefits outweigh the costs and it would be madness to leave.

My view, clearly, is diametrically opposite. Britain is better together because it is a full political, financial, and economic union under one government of people who are very much alike.

The EU, on the other hand is not a political union, made up nations of people who are completely different and who do not want to be alike. They are as proud of their country as we are of our's. Why would any of us want to lose it?

We should be a collection of friends, able to do our own thing, but able to work together as well. We should not become one state as none of us would be happy. And definitely not under a government, the EU Commission, we can neither vote in or out.

To me, the madness is staying in and the rewards for leaving are far far greater. But I'm not eloquent enough to give you a positive vision of what it would be like if we left. Instead, I'll leave it to this guy. It's worth a read if only for a balanced debate...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11644904/A-vision-of-Britain-outside-the-EU-confident-successful-and-free.html

If you know of an article for a positive vision for staying in, I'd be happy to see it. I haven't found one so far, though, that isn't just pro-EU propaganda.

Cheers,

Schneckster

michaels

Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia - afaik they all have much smaller economies than the UK, often with large local trading partners, but cope just fine as independent countries able to set their own laws.

I don't know which way I will be voting but I wish we could have a sensible debate. I am not (that) old, poorly educated, racist or a xeonphobe but I think it is a nuanced debate with advantages to both positions.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia - afaik they all have much smaller economies than the UK, often with large local trading partners, but cope just fine as independent countries able to set their own laws.

I don't know which way I will be voting but I wish we could have a sensible debate. I am not (that) old, poorly educated, racist or a xeonphobe but I think it is a nuanced debate with advantages to both positions.

The problem Australia faces is that she is buffeted by whatever the prevailing winds happen to be internationally. There is no way Australia can set the frame of discussion.

Outside the EU the UK would be in exactly the same position.

Investment Banks might be contentious as a topic but they make a lot of money for the UK . By being in the EU, the UK can stop some of the crazier ideas (e.g. The Tobin Tax) that would destroy a large part of the UK's economy.

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia - afaik they all have much smaller economies than the UK, often with large local trading partners, but cope just fine as independent countries able to set their own laws.

I don't know which way I will be voting but I wish we could have a sensible debate. I am not (that) old, poorly educated, racist or a xeonphobe but I think it is a nuanced debate with advantages to both positions.

We should pick a position in this political map

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia - afaik they all have much smaller economies than the UK, often with large local trading partners, but cope just fine as independent countries able to set their own laws....

Both Norway and Switzerland are obliged to implement EU directives. They are not quite as free " to set their own laws" as you imagine.

And I think you'll find that their "large local trading partners" are in fact EU members.:)

chewmylegoff

antrobus wrote: »

Both Norway and Switzerland are obliged to implement EU directives. They are not quite as free " to set their own laws" as you imagine.

And I think you'll find that their "large local trading partners" are in fact EU members.:)

Switzerland must have some kind of leeway because they have definitely not implemented either MIFID or MAD.

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

Both Norway and Switzerland are obliged to implement EU directives. They are not quite as free " to set their own laws" as you imagine.

And I think you'll find that their "large local trading partners" are in fact EU members.:)

Read up on the Bruges Group info on alternatives to EU membership: EFTA /EEA membership as in Norway or EFTA membership alone as in Switzerland. Other sources in the past have suggested that Norway contributes less than if a full EU member. But doesn't have to sign up to every rule. Plus can also keep its fisheries, etc.

antrobus

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Switzerland must have some kind of leeway because they have definitely not implemented either MIFID or MAD.

There is indeed some kind of "leeway". The exact nature of the Swiss-EU relationship is set out in "around 100 bilateral agreements" where the "on-going implementation of these agreements obliges Switzerland to take over relevant Community legislation in the covered sectors".

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/switzerland/

I am, however, disinclined to actually read those 100 agreements, simply in order to establish the precise 'leway' involved .:)

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

Read up on the Bruges Group info on alternatives to EU membership:...

Why would I want to waste my time on secondary sources like the "Bruges Group info"? There are far better sources of information available on this interweb of ours, if you care to look for them.

zagubov wrote: »

... EFTA /EEA membership as in Norway or EFTA membership alone as in Switzerland. Other sources in the past have suggested that Norway contributes less than if a full EU member. But doesn't have to sign up to every rule. Plus can also keep its fisheries, etc.

As far as I'm aware, there are four alternatives;

- the Norwegian option
- the Swiss option
- the Turkish option
- the Clean break option

Anyone who advocates EU withdrawal is going to have to pick one of them.

(See, I already know what the alternatives are, without wasting my time on 'Bruges Group info'.:))