If we vote to Remain what happens?

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Pfizer, and many more non EU drugs companies trade with EU citizens no problem. Microsoft, Samsung, Sony and all the rest sell things to Europe.


Trade will always come about as long as we provide products and services people wish to buy.

I never said otherwise!

The debate was about UK based EU agencies of which one is the European Medicines Agency and the assertion that after a Brexit the EU could/would keep the EMA in the UK. The EMA (cf the US FDA) coordinates the evaluation of new medicines in the EU and reduces the costs to drug companies of having to navigate 28 national approval schemes.

I was questioning whether the EU nations would allow a UK based agency involving the UK to approve the use of a new drug in an EU country? In the short term yes but I would expect the EMA to relocated to the EU and the UK to operate a separate national approvals process, allowing UK based drug firms to seek approval from the EMA as they would the FDA. Am I wrong?

Once approved by the EU, clearly we could sell the drugs in the EU as you say and I never said otherwise. But would we accept guidance from the EMA on whether to approve the use of drug in the UK?

michaels

May be me reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear that the EU is making a concerted effort to 'shut up' in order not to illustrate to the British Voters just where the balance of power lies nowadays. Donald Tusk EU president:

He said he could not "remain silent" after Mr Johnson compared the EU's aims with Hitler's.
...

He said: "To defend does not mean to lecture anyone. The British citizens will make this decision themselves and they do not need any whisperers, especially from Brussels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36314814

Filo25

michaels wrote: »

May be me reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear that the EU is making a concerted effort to 'shut up' in order not to illustrate to the British Voters just where the balance of power lies nowadays. Donald Tusk EU president:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36314814

The things is I do totally understand the concerns with the democratic deficit of the EU, I think its a totally valid point in the debate.

They just haven't overridden us on anything I have gotten particularly excited about yet, if they had maybe I would be voting to leave as well.

I do think a lot of the leave campaign over-egg how much power they have, we managed to have an election with very different parties with very different policies vying for votes in the last general election, none of those policies appeared to be illegal under EU law.

Equally we are now exercising our ultimate democratic right over the EU, a referendum on whether to remain part of it or not, as long as we have that option there will always be some democratic accountability of the EU, namely if most people think it has a net negative rather than positive impact then we can vote to leave.

It's why I'm not voting in this referendum based on what the EU might do or might become in the future, I'm voting on where we are now, if the EU changes significantly in future and those changes are unpopular in the UK then we will have another referendum then and I will vote based on what I think of the EU at that time.

To be fair I also think they are wise to shutup, I know its immature but nobody likes being told what to do!

Generali

michaels wrote: »

May be me reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear that the EU is making a concerted effort to 'shut up' in order not to illustrate to the British Voters just where the balance of power lies nowadays. Donald Tusk EU president:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36314814

It shows some political astuteness: if the complaint about the EU is that it's overbearing and nannying then perhaps it's best that the organisation tries not to be overbearing and nannying while what could turn out to be an existential vote about its future is conducted.

Assuming the UK votes Remain, which I would say is looking highly likely as people generally turn up to the ballot box and vote for the status quo, it will be interesting what if any impact this whole debate will have had on the EU as an institution.

The things that the Brits are saying about the EU are much the same things I've heard said in French caf!s about the EU. Maybe the FN offering a referendum on the EU or promising a renegotiation would be the platform that tips them over the edge from being perennial losers to being winners.

Stuff I have read over the past few years coming out of the EU has suggested that they do get it, they realise that the top down approach where they just ran with centralising more and more was making the EU deeply unpopular with Europeans. I think the one thing positive that will come out of this referendum is that having recognised the problem isn't enough, they need to act too.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Assuming the UK votes Remain, which I would say is looking highly likely as people generally turn up to the ballot box and vote for the status quo, it will be interesting what if any impact this whole debate will have had on the EU as an institution.
...

Maybe a close run result with a Remain win is a good thing?

It would illustrate to Juncker and co just how flimsy the confidence is out there in some of the major European states.

There is a parallel with the Scottish Indy Ref. I think Westminster is fearful of implementing aggressive austerity in Scotland because of the independence issue sitting in the background all the time.

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

It's why I'm not voting in this referendum based on what the EU might do or might become in the future, I'm voting on where we are now, if the EU changes significantly in future and those changes are unpopular in the UK then we will have another referendum then and I will vote based on what I think of the EU at that time.

If you are voting based on where we are now, then when did you get to have any say on today's EU?
The answer is that you didn't.
So why do you think you'll get a say on tomorrow's EU?
DC has repeatedly stated that this is a one-shot referendum.

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

If you are voting based on where we are now, then when did you get to have any say on today's EU?
The answer is that you didn't.
So why do you think you'll get a say on tomorrow's EU?
DC has repeatedly stated that this is a one-shot referendum.

The government we as a nation elected had a say on today's EU, we could also all have voted UKIP and left the EU or at least had a referendum on it anytime we wanted to.

This should be a once in a generation referendum as well, unless there are material changes in our relationship with the EU.

If we do have material changes (say all EU countries were forced to join the Euro) then we should have a referendum again, if our national government refuses to grant one then we can always elect a new government that will.

What I don't agree with is Farage's comment yesterday which implies if the vote is close to remain we should vote again, basically because he doesn't like the result.

It will clearly be up to any future UK government if they want to hold another referendum, its not an EU decision.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

...
DC has repeatedly stated that this is a one-shot referendum.

On what basis can he say this?

He offered the referendum as an election bribe to people within his party basically.

Many of those same people are still there, or in the wings.

Cameron will be gone in a few years anyway.

With the rise of SNP, UKIP, a fragmented Labour and possibly further fragmentation in the Tories, we could have the distinct possibility of more deals needing to be done in the next GE.

Cameron can no more control the future than I.

The other thing he can not control is this innate ability the EU has of fudging over major issues. The refugee crisis has not gone away. Turkey has not gone away. The Euro issues have not gone away. boats across the med have not gone away.

I'm not sure anyone can predict what the situation will be in even 5 years time.

michaels

My understanding is that to get our 4 year benefits reduction we agreed to give up a veto on other countries moving ahead to deeper union even where this was not in our interest - for example Euro countries could implement fiscal union even if this resulted in the UK then being excluded fom somethings only available to 'fiscal union countries' (at this point countries is probably better repalced by counties but that is another story) so the EU already has 'enabling' provisions to deepen is scope without the member states all agreeing.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

My understanding is that to get our 4 year benefits reduction we agreed to give up a veto on other countries moving ahead to deeper union even where this was not in our interest - for example Euro countries could implement fiscal union even if this resulted in the UK then being excluded fom somethings only available to 'fiscal union countries' (at this point countries is probably better repalced by counties but that is another story) so the EU already has 'enabling' provisions to deepen is scope without the member states all agreeing.

Conspiratorial thinking! We already have a situation where 19 nations have the Euro. What does it matter if they implement things related to the Euro that we do not adopt? The EU is generally favours of harmonising what nations do so if it is at all possible for us to participate in any harmonisation they will not exclude us.

There are 8 nations that are committed to joining the Euro when the time is right. This is largely their choice but I seem to recall that Brown spent years saying "when the time was right" and it never was. We have a choice now, as does Denmark.

In practice we have the best of both worlds. There is no conspiracy! We retain the right to choose.

What "enabling provisions"?