If we vote to Remain what happens?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

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"?

in what way are failing states in the euro zone 'the best of both worlds'
in what way is our inability to have free trade with 160 countries the ' best of both worlds'?

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

...

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.
...

Brown knew we did not meet the entry criteria when the Euro was launched. It's as simple as that.

It wasn't a "choice" thing at all.

Generali

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.

If the EU is to split into a Eurozone core and a periphery it isn't possible to be both in the core and out of it.

Just as if the UK leaves the EU she will lose pretty much all ability to have an effect on EU decisions, the the UK decides to have a semi-detached relationship with the EU, decisions will be made without the UK having a say.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

If the EU is to split into a Eurozone core and a periphery it isn't possible to be both in the core and out of it.

Just as if the UK leaves the EU she will lose pretty much all ability to have an effect on EU decisions, the the UK decides to have a semi-detached relationship with the EU, decisions will be made without the UK having a say.

seems that both in or out we get to have no say

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way are failing states in the euro zone 'the best of both worlds'

In the sense that we are outside of the Euro and in the EU, accessing the single market but without the constraints of being controlled by the Euroland financial policies.

in what way is our inability to have free trade with 160 countries the ' best of both worlds'?

Which countries are these? As far as I know 55% of our trade is with other nations not in the EEA. Are you saying we cannot trade with Venezuela and South Africa?

If you really mean "free" trade then explain how long it will take to get such an agreement in place with these 160 countries.

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Brown knew we did not meet the entry criteria when the Euro was launched. It's as simple as that.

It wasn't a "choice" thing at all.

Agreed, but now we have a choice based on Cameron's agreement.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

In the sense that we are outside of the Euro and in the EU, accessing the single market but without the constraints of being controlled by the Euroland financial policies.



Which countries are these? As far as I know 55% of our trade is with other nations not in the EEA. Are you saying we cannot trade with Venezuela and South Africa?

If you really mean "free" trade then explain how long it will take to get such an agreement in place with these 160 countries.

are you saying that if we were outside the EU (brexit) is would be easy and quick to set up trade agrement with individual EU27 countries, just as we have set up trade agreement with most of the world?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

Austerity is a continual process. That's why there's a gnashing of teeth. The agenda is set. The drive to save money is relentless. 1% pay rises for public sector workers for yet another year is inflicting austerity of a kind on Scotland.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you saying that if we were outside the EU (brexit) is would be easy and quick to set up trade agrement with individual EU27 countries, just as we have set up trade agreement with most of the world?

No. I am saying it would be difficult to do this quickly with 160 countries (that you have not defined). Strictly that would be 160 +27 on Brexit I presume.

I am assuming that the Leave plan is to use WTO tariffs but that would not be free trade. You explain how we would have free trade with the 187 that you refer to in any sensible timescale!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

No. I am saying it would be difficult to do this quickly with 160 countries (that you have not defined). Strictly that would be 160 +27 on Brexit I presume.

I am assuming that the Leave plan is to use WTO tariffs but that would not be free trade. You explain how we would have free trade with the 187 that you refer to in any sensible timescale!

so you are saying that germany, france, italy, spain, + the other EU countries have huge problems in setting up trade relationes with aus, n zealand, india, china, brazil, argentina plus the other 160 countries and it will be eqaully difficult to estable trade relationships wiht the UK if we leave
basically we will be as badly off as Indian, China, USA, Canada et etc


oh well that's life.