Brexit

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

... 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.

The source below says if the UK chose the Norway Option, it would retain 94% of the current costs of regulation. Given that the Norway Option would involve giving up any say on how those regulations are formed, some might say that's a lot of money to pay for a few fish.:)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/eu-exit-norway-option-costs-thinktank

schneckster

Generali wrote: »

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

The UK is in this position INSIDE the EU except with the added wind (literally!) of incompetent EU economic policy and their disdain to follow even their own rules! (under the rules, Greece would not have been allowed to join the euro, there would have been no bailouts of the PIIGS countries). The only thing we have going for us is that we kept the pound. We would be better able to deal with winds outside the EU.

Generali wrote: »

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.

You mean the Tobin Tax that was ditched in 2011? Or do you mean the resurrected Tobin Tax that 11 EU countries are now pushing for once again?
http://www.bankingtech.com/276812/resurrected-financial-transaction-tax-poses-threat-to-eu-markets/

As you say, this would wreak havoc on our economy and have a seriously negative effect on the City - I'm not keen on the bankers, but the City represents 10% of the UK's GDP. If this new attempt at Tobin goes through, expect an EU Directive, or ECJ Ruling forcing the UK to apply it as well.

Of course, we opted out of such things and enshrined it in treaties, didn't we? The article shows how it would affect the UK, but here's a senior UK judge on how our opt-outs are worthless:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-judge-surprised-that-controversial-eu-laws-that-we-blocked-are-now-legally-binding-8934773.html

And here's an example of the unelected ECJ, at the behest of the EU, doing it to us again on the UK's elected government election promise not to raise VAT...

http://order-order.com/2015/06/04/eu-forces-elected-government-to-renege-on-queens-speech-promise/#_@/ujjSCxmH7DF64A

And these are our friends? Sheesh!

Schneckster

schneckster

antrobus wrote: »

The source below says if the UK chose the Norway Option, it would retain 94% of the current costs of regulation. Given that the Norway Option would involve giving up any say on how those regulations are formed, some might say that's a lot of money to pay for a few fish.:)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/eu-exit-norway-option-costs-thinktank

You don't like "secondary" sources, and then you cite the Guardian???
Open Europe says what the Guardian says it does so I'm joking this time... I wouldn't normally where the Guardian is concerned!

Here's another respected think tank, Civitas, on the Norway option - http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2015/02/new-study-the-norwegian-model-is-a-viable-brexit-option/

To summarise quickly, they say Norway does not have a vote on EU law, that's true. But, unlike the UK, it has a veto on many things and only applies EU law to the single market unless it wishes to apply it elsewhere. Again unlike the UK, it has control over it's own fisheries and waters (worth 61billion NOK or approx £5billion a year in exports - source Norway Fisheries) and can negotiate its own trade deals without the EU - including, like Iceland, a deal with China, something the EU (and Britain!!!!) has not done. And all at a fraction of what the UK pays to the EU.

The problem with think tanks is that they can have different opinions just like the rest of us. The problem with newspapers, especially the Guardian and Daily Mail, is they can selectively quote and edit to suit their agenda. The Open Europe is respected and its blog states what the Guardian says it does so I'm interested to know why 2 think tanks see things so different. However, Civitas give links to supporting information, something Open Europe does not do. Take your choice, I guess.

Schneckster

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

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?

The problem with your analysis is that while ask for some proof you are wrong, you provide none that you are right.

Britain can equally be viewed as a divided nation largely left wing in the north and right wing in the south with a great deal of inequality that varies between regions. The EU is not a homogenous region but has a lot of variety. If you are poor in the UK, you probably have as more in common with the poor in Italy or Spain than the wealthy in London. It is all a matter of perspective and we are not that different to most of the EU.

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.

Being more integrated does not have to mean a full political union. We gain a lot from integrated transport, consumer laws, freedom to travel, reciprocal arrangements, common approaches to crime, etc. We just need to make sure these are fair.

To me, the madness is staying in and the rewards for leaving are far far greater

.

An assertion but without evidence. The rewards of leaving will include a requirement to use European standards for trading with the EU, the unemployment arising from UK based companies relocating to the EU, the lack of clout from being part of a smaller bloc, greater risks of relying on others for food and energy supplies etc.

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

Daniel Hannan is an anti-EU MEP. Hardly an objective analysis.

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.

How come it is OK for you to quote anti-EU propaganda but you want others to post things that are not pro-EU propaganda?

Try this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-inout-question-why-britain-should-stay-in-the-eu-9213131.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10125184/The-Thatcherite-case-for-staying-in-the-EU.html

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

antrobus wrote: »

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'.:))

:rotfl: Are you thick? Why is there a choice of Norwegian, Swiss or Turkish models?! Do you not think a country of our achievements can achieve a British Model?!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

How come it is OK for you to quote anti-EU propaganda but you want others to post things that are not pro-EU propaganda?

Try this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-inout-question-why-britain-should-stay-in-the-eu-9213131.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10125184/The-Thatcherite-case-for-staying-in-the-EU.html

good stuff there

I see the CBI strongly supporting staying in the EU

Now those there the same people that strongly supported joining the euro

with a track record like that, surely a negative?

schneckster

BobQ wrote: »

The problem with your analysis is that while ask for some proof you are wrong, you provide none that you are right.

The clue was in the first sentence you quoted… “My view…”. Are we not all venturing our views on this forum? And where did I ask for proof? I asked for a pro-EU version of Dan Hannan’s article, again a view, but perhaps one does not exist since you haven’t replied with one. I also see that you said my analysis/view is wrong but haven’t qualified why. Interesting.

BobQ wrote: »

Britain can equally be viewed as a divided nation largely left wing in the north and right wing in the south with a great deal of inequality that varies between regions. The EU is not a homogenous region but has a lot of variety. If you are poor in the UK, you probably have as more in common with the poor in Italy or Spain than the wealthy in London. It is all a matter of perspective and we are not that different to most of the EU.

Yes it can, but that isn’t “my view” (there’s those words again!) But at least we agree that the EU has a lot of variety. And it is this variety and the fact that individual peoples are proud of who they are that means the EU can never work. Have you seen the anti-Germany demos in Athens? I’m British and proud to be. The last Frenchman I met was equally proud of his nation. Why get rid of those sources of pride?

BobQ wrote: »

Being more integrated does not have to mean a full political union

Unfortunately, more integrated means exactly that. Have you not listened to any of the EU Commission, read Lisbon, or heard what has been said for the last 40 years? Here are the latest proposals for deeper integration. Notice how they don’t want treaty change? That would mean referenda in many off the affected countries and the people might say no. The EU doesn’t like that – ask Ireland!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/03/german-and-french-ministers-call-for-radical-integration-of-eurozone?CMP=share_btn_tw
Single budget? Pooled liabilities? That's the end of the nation state - whoever controls a country's finances controls the country. That is where the EU is heading and since Germany and France are jointly proposing this, it will happen. Do you want the UK to join them?
Also note the article is from the Guardian, that bastion of anti-EU propaganda!!!

BobQ wrote: »

We gain a lot from integrated transport, consumer laws, freedom to travel, reciprocal arrangements, common approaches to crime, etc. We just need to make sure these are fair.

Maybe we do, but again, therein lies the problem – making sure these are fair. In a previous post I showed what “fair” is to the EU with regards to VAT on energy efficiency products and services. I also showed how fair a senior British judge thinks our negotiated opt outs were (see a previous top above). And why have full political union to do all this? Agreements existed between countries long before the EU. UK-US, for example.

BobQ wrote: »

An assertion but without evidence. The rewards of leaving will include a requirement to use European standards for trading with the EU, the unemployment arising from UK based companies relocating to the EU, the lack of clout from being part of a smaller bloc, greater risks of relying on others for food and energy supplies etc

A “view” just like your assertions without evidence that follow your words “An assertion but without evidence…”
We have to comply with US standards to trade in the US. Should we join the USA? What about Chinese standards for China? Australian for Australia? What’s the difference? We apply the standards to products sold to those markets but we do not apply their law to everything at home, do we? So why is the EU any different?

As for companies relocating if we left, please give me a list – I can think of several saying that. Most said the same if we didn’t change to the euro, but strangely, they’re all still here. And interestingly, most received some financial rewards from the EU, hence my point about propaganda.

BobQ wrote: »

Daniel Hannan is an anti-EU MEP. Hardly an objective analysis.
How come it is OK for you to quote anti-EU propaganda but you want others to post things that are not pro-EU propaganda?

Again, read it properly. It is his “view”, one shared by many. He offered a positive vision of leaving the EU in a column – isn’t that what columnists do? Write their opinions? And as for anti-EU propaganda, I mean things like Nick Clegg’s 3million jobs lost if we leave nonsense that was debunked by the researchers who first mentioned the figure. Or companies in receipt of EU funds (or taxpayers money as I like to think of it!) professing doom if we left.

BobQ wrote: »

Try this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-inout-question-why-britain-should-stay-in-the-eu-9213131.html

First point – 10% trade tariffs? Evidence of that figure? And is that before or after BMW, Mercedes and Audi rip Merkel a new one? We might have tariffs for a bit, but when we respond in kind and BMW start losing profits, it won't last. Plus the increased price of BMW means Jaguar do better - win-win for the UK
Second – Ford warned us in 2014 not to leave the EU, right? Is that the same Ford that, in receipt of an £80million loan from the EU at very favourable rates, closed the Transit factory in Southampton with the loss of hundreds of jobs and moved it to a new plant to Turkey - outside the EU? Like I said before, pay the piper and all that…

I could add more about that article, but it is late.

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10125184/The-Thatcherite-case-for-staying-in-the-EU.html

Ken Clarke? Really?? You’re using him to give your argument weight? He told us we were all doomed when we didn’t swap the pound for the euro. Like the CBI, he hasn’t been right about the EU once. And CLarke using "Thatcherite" when he was one of the wets that forced her out of office for her views on the EU is like a fox campaigning for chickens rights and better hen-house conditions!

Schneckster

schneckster

CLAPTON wrote: »

good stuff there

I see the CBI strongly supporting staying in the EU

Now those there the same people that strongly supported joining the euro

with a track record like that, surely a negative?

Does the CBI support come before or after the EU cheque has cleared, I wonder? Apparently they've had more than £800,000 from the EU Commission over the last 5 years! :eek:

kabayiri

Interesting news snippet on breakfast telly this morn, highlighting coverage of the last EU referendum in the 70s.

It's fascinating to note that the issues people had back then were not those they are concerned with today. For example, immigration was barely given a mention.

Will this coming referendum again focus on the short term and not the long term issues ?

The key for me is clarity over the direction in which Europe is heading, and whether people understand this and share its' objectives.

Short term issues will work themselves out.

For example, at what point does a EU with a common army become a growing threat to it's big military neighbours like Russia?

Generali

Part of the problem of 'justifying' the EU is the intangible gains from free trade.

These are, I strongly suspect, absolutely huge. I have absolutely no way to prove that though.