The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Bluebarge said:
turbobloke said:
The case for No / Out is mainly political and relates to self-determination and sovereignty not Alice stories about trade.
Self-determination is a chimera. If you need to co-operate with other nations (which every nation must, in order to trade or defend itself - N.Korea is perhaps the sole example that doesn't) then you have to sign up to international agreements or find yourself subject to tariffs/other consequences. That fact means that not every nation always gets what it wants, but grown-ups manage to compromise.For example the US - EU trade agreement was first talked about in the 90's (with more concrete stuff happening in 2006 with Ms Merkel), here we are 25 years later and still nothing is signed because of protectionism of differing vested interests.
They just finished the ninth round of talks in April, and will need more talks later this year before anything has any hope of coming into place in 2016.
Quite a few of the issues have been because, you've guessed it, it might harm the French in some way. Either their farmers (can't touch them!) or their film industry.
Surely it would be quicker and easier to agree one country to another, not having to factor in 20 odd countries worth of objections (but really only worrying about the main ones)?
Bluebarge said:
FiF said:
BlueBarge said:
Nothing of any substance including the false premise of not asking to withdraw from the UK
Of course the ballot box in the UK has some sort of option to punish those miscreants by kicking out of office. Unfortunately as things stand they are all pretty much of a muchness , equally venal and incompetent but in different ways.
Quite happy that people don't want / can't engage as it saves time from dealing with hypocrites and fools.
No frothing here, vaguely amusing just taking the pee. So many opportunities. So much that's indefensible, and they know it.
FiF said:
Bluebarge said:
FiF said:
BlueBarge said:
Nothing of any substance including the false premise of not asking to withdraw from the UK
Of course the ballot box in the UK has some sort of option to punish those miscreants by kicking out of office. Unfortunately as things stand they are all pretty much of a muchness , equally venal and incompetent but in different ways.
Quite happy that people don't want / can't engage as it saves time from dealing with hypocrites and fools.
No frothing here, vaguely amusing just taking the pee. So many opportunities. So much that's indefensible, and they know it.
FiF said:
Why should I repeat stuff posted earlier just for you? Links provided too if you cared to look.
Oh, I have had a look at your link to assorted articles in the Torygraph, the latest of which details what life is like being subject to EU rules but without the influence to change them. I note its authors come from (1) a bankrupt country that mostly sells fish and (2) a small, landlocked country whose wealth has largely resided on being a haven for dirty money, but which is now being forced to change its hallowed banking secrecy laws by the US Justice Dept. and the EU - clearly a triumph for "going it alone".I'm not sure why you think that article backs up your argument, because it clearly doesn't.
Actually seeing as you can't be bothered was referring to such as this, also already provided.
http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
Murph7355 said:
As things stand the EU relies more on our business than we do its. EU businesses would have major issues if we were to be prevented doing business with them so it won't happen.
We're also geared to conform as things stand so any divergence, should we choose it to happen, won't happen overnight. But as and when it does it would be our choice. Perhaps agreeing to some new standard might prove problematic to a bigger trading relationship and we might choose not to follow the EU path as a result.
The trade side of life will sort itself out as it always has for hundreds of years.
What won't is giving up sovereign powers. Control of our borders must rest with our elected government. Ditto our armed forces and participation in action involving them. Ditto our judiciary.
That we might use these things poorly is neither here nor there. We need to reserve the right to choose. And the way the EU is going, those rights are being massively eroded.
I think you're missing the point.We're also geared to conform as things stand so any divergence, should we choose it to happen, won't happen overnight. But as and when it does it would be our choice. Perhaps agreeing to some new standard might prove problematic to a bigger trading relationship and we might choose not to follow the EU path as a result.
The trade side of life will sort itself out as it always has for hundreds of years.
What won't is giving up sovereign powers. Control of our borders must rest with our elected government. Ditto our armed forces and participation in action involving them. Ditto our judiciary.
That we might use these things poorly is neither here nor there. We need to reserve the right to choose. And the way the EU is going, those rights are being massively eroded.
Our trade with the EU makes up a far greater proportion of our external trade than trade with the UK does of the EU's external trade, so any impact will be greater for us.
Trade will certainly sort itself out, but over what timescale and on what terms is completely unknown and unknowable. It is, however, likely to come about after extended and painful negotiation which will not do the UK's economy any good at all.
Control of our borders and armed forces is not in question from the EU. Our judiciary is independent but the UK has agreed to be subject to some EU legislation as a quid pro quo for access to the Single Market. This is in our interests because it ensures a level playing field for UK businesses and citizens within Europe. Parliament is still sovereign and can change that position if it wants> Parliament has also been happy to grant non-EU countries (the USA) rights to extradite UK citizens that go beyond those it grants to other members of the EU. So, being non-aligned does not necessarily mean being independent, does it?
FiF said:
Actually seeing as you can't be bothered was referring to such as this, also already provided.
http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
Oh please, a report by a Eurosceptic ginger group written by a host of un-eminent businessmen who have no experience of running a large multinational business or international politics, which is based largely on guesswork? Not impressed, sorry.http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
FiF said:
Actually seeing as you can't be bothered was referring to such as this, also already provided.
http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
Here you go - counterpoint to the Eurosceptic fairy story from some businessmen who actually run decent-sized operations:http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Presumably you're all for the EU in all it's current splendour without any change, or?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/br...
and another one
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1b68eb0-18dd-11e5-a130-...
Edited by Bluebarge on Tuesday 21st July 16:04
Bluebarge said:
Trade will certainly sort itself out, but over what timescale and on what terms is completely unknown and unknowable. It is, however, likely to come about after extended and painful negotiation which will not do the UK's economy any good at all.
While I favour a EU exit I would agree that if we decided to simply leave the EU with no agreements on future trading arrangements with the EU (this is favoured by many on here) but in my opinion would lead to large scale economic risk. I also believe negotiating a trade agreement with the EU in the 2 years exit negations is a non starter, Most trade agreement take 10 odd years to negotiate and even then do not cover financial services.There is another alternative:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/pol...
The Swiss option as I have said is not possible in the short term but leaving the EU but remaining in the EEA is a workable solution to resolve many of our issues with the EU while gaining much greater control of our future.
The problem with that option is that UKIP opposite it because it will not give immediate control of our borders.
I also think you miss the point. Its not just about the UK wanting to leave the EU as it is now but where the EU is going. The creation of the euro has created a rift in the EU. By the nature of a single currency the in members must become closer. Mutual agreement to budgets, borrowing limits, even transfer payments are all a prerequisite to resolving the euro crisis and avoiding its recurrence. The non EU members, at least those who may now decide they never want to join, cannot be part of the same EU as the in members. While we discuss an UK referendum the rest of the EU is also considering the options. The EU may even welcome a solution where non euro members, all leave the EU but remain in the EEA. This would allow the EU euro members to continue with the project.
"if we decided to simply leave the EU with no agreements on future trading arrangements with the EU (this is favoured by many on here)"
In all the excitement that got missed - who are the many in favour of that? I can recall some PHers, including me, commenting that the decision is fundamentally a political one - this does not ignore economics of course.
Perhaps it depends on the interpretation of 'to simply leave'.
Is that at the point of a referendum result for No/Out? Clearly until then, we're in, and we're still in immediately afterwards. The government start working on a Brexit, but it's not all done and dusted at that point obviously.
The reality is that we can't "simply leave" as there is a process to follow as per the Brexit papers and essays both linked and quoted in this thread.
Discussions on various matters including trade will be ongoing for some time after the referendum result in the event of a No/Out result but what won't happen is that everyone stands still and sucks their thumb.
In all the excitement that got missed - who are the many in favour of that? I can recall some PHers, including me, commenting that the decision is fundamentally a political one - this does not ignore economics of course.
Perhaps it depends on the interpretation of 'to simply leave'.
Is that at the point of a referendum result for No/Out? Clearly until then, we're in, and we're still in immediately afterwards. The government start working on a Brexit, but it's not all done and dusted at that point obviously.
The reality is that we can't "simply leave" as there is a process to follow as per the Brexit papers and essays both linked and quoted in this thread.
Discussions on various matters including trade will be ongoing for some time after the referendum result in the event of a No/Out result but what won't happen is that everyone stands still and sucks their thumb.
Bluebarge said:
Oh please, a report by a Eurosceptic ginger group written by a host of un-eminent businessmen who have no experience of running a large omultinational business or international politics, which is based largely on guesswork? Not impressed, sorry.
Oh we're in the presence of greatness here, someone who can read and dissect as worthless a 1000 page half a million word effort within 13 minutes. As I said the other day. Plus as usual your ilk attack the messengers not the message.
Other studies are available but not going to bother linking them again as it would be a waste of my time.
Bluebarge said:
There is no "free trade". It is all subject to international agreements which we would have to start from scratch with. That is not a false premise, that is a fact, and it is a fact that would inhibit investment in, and trade with, our country unless favourable agreements could be quickly concluded with other countries. That seems most unlikely, unless we just sign up to the EEA, in which case we would get the EU regulation anyway, but no influence.
So, I don't agree with you, but I appreciate you approaching the argument in a constructive manner
There's relatively good access to most markets via WTO trading terms, and no reason to think that as a large, highly developed economy we couldn't negotiate even better terms fairly quickly. So, I don't agree with you, but I appreciate you approaching the argument in a constructive manner
I don't have any faith in our influence in the EU. And anyway who is "we"? Our only current commissioner is Jonathan Hill, or Baron Hill of Oareford to his friends. From a quick Wiki he seems to be a life long politico most notable for helping John Major railroad Maastricht through parliament, appointed a Lord by David Cameron. He's not someone I would obviously choose to represent me at the highest level of government.
Mrr T said:
I also think you miss the point. Its not just about the UK wanting to leave the EU as it is now but where the EU is going. The creation of the euro has created a rift in the EU. By the nature of a single currency the in members must become closer. Mutual agreement to budgets, borrowing limits, even transfer payments are all a prerequisite to resolving the euro crisis and avoiding its recurrence. The non EU members, at least those who may now decide they never want to join, cannot be part of the same EU as the in members. While we discuss an UK referendum the rest of the EU is also considering the options. The EU may even welcome a solution where non euro members, all leave the EU but remain in the EEA. This would allow the EU euro members to continue with the project.
You make a good point about the direction of the EU but I'm not sure its direction is all that certain.I think there will certainly be an effort to further integrate the Eurozone but I simply don't think it will work given the political mood in those countries (French nationalism, German fear of money transfer to the South, Italian and Spanish anti-austerity movements). I can see the Eurozone unravelling just as easily as it unifying.
And I don't think you should make decisions based on what might happen, because if there are any further fundamental changes to the EU we will have the option to opt in or out at that stage. But I take your point that the times are changing.
Murph7355 said:
Bluebarge said:
...
For every example of EU waste you could find an equivalent example of Whitehall waste (bungled IT projects, scrapped Nimrods, £65k wallpaper for the Speakers apartments, aircraft carriers without aircraft, overseas aid wasted because it has to be spent within the accounting year to meet "targets") but, oddly, that doesn't cause you to demand withdrawal from the UK..
So you're comfy adding layers of similar but unelected incompetence and waste onto our system? For every example of EU waste you could find an equivalent example of Whitehall waste (bungled IT projects, scrapped Nimrods, £65k wallpaper for the Speakers apartments, aircraft carriers without aircraft, overseas aid wasted because it has to be spent within the accounting year to meet "targets") but, oddly, that doesn't cause you to demand withdrawal from the UK..
Bluebarge said:
...
If you could elucidate clear reasons for the UK leaving the EU, what you would replace it with and how that would be possible when our major trading partners mostly want us to stay in, how being "out" would not involve being part of the EEA and therefore pretty much "in", how long it would take to set up a workable replacement for our existing trade agreements (most commentators estimate 10 years) and how you would stem the outflow of overseas investment and jobs from the UK during that (probably 10 year) period, then it might be worth engaging you in debate.
... .
As things stand the EU relies more on our business than we do its. EU businesses would have major issues if we were to be prevented doing business with them so it won't happen. If you could elucidate clear reasons for the UK leaving the EU, what you would replace it with and how that would be possible when our major trading partners mostly want us to stay in, how being "out" would not involve being part of the EEA and therefore pretty much "in", how long it would take to set up a workable replacement for our existing trade agreements (most commentators estimate 10 years) and how you would stem the outflow of overseas investment and jobs from the UK during that (probably 10 year) period, then it might be worth engaging you in debate.
... .
We're also geared to conform as things stand so any divergence, should we choose it to happen, won't happen overnight. But as and when it does it would be our choice. Perhaps agreeing to some new standard might prove problematic to a bigger trading relationship and we might choose not to follow the EU path as a result.
The trade side of life will sort itself out as it always has for hundreds of years.
What won't is giving up sovereign powers. Control of our borders must rest with our elected government. Ditto our armed forces and participation in action involving them. Ditto our judiciary.
That we might use these things poorly is neither here nor there. We need to reserve the right to choose. And the way the EU is going, those rights are being massively eroded.
London424 said:
The thing with the above is that when the EU negotiate with another nation (let's take the US as an example) there are so many bloody trade-offs that it takes forever to agree and you have so many exceptions or watered down aspects of it, that you'd struggle to see the value.
For example the US - EU trade agreement was first talked about in the 90's (with more concrete stuff happening in 2006 with Ms Merkel), here we are 25 years later and still nothing is signed because of protectionism of differing vested interests.
They just finished the ninth round of talks in April, and will need more talks later this year before anything has any hope of coming into place in 2016.
Quite a few of the issues have been because, you've guessed it, it might harm the French in some way. Either their farmers (can't touch them!) or their film industry.
Surely it would be quicker and easier to agree one country to another, not having to factor in 20 odd countries worth of objections (but really only worrying about the main ones)?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-dealFor example the US - EU trade agreement was first talked about in the 90's (with more concrete stuff happening in 2006 with Ms Merkel), here we are 25 years later and still nothing is signed because of protectionism of differing vested interests.
They just finished the ninth round of talks in April, and will need more talks later this year before anything has any hope of coming into place in 2016.
Quite a few of the issues have been because, you've guessed it, it might harm the French in some way. Either their farmers (can't touch them!) or their film industry.
Surely it would be quicker and easier to agree one country to another, not having to factor in 20 odd countries worth of objections (but really only worrying about the main ones)?
A US-UK trade deal would be unlikely-according to US officials in 2013.
cookie118 said:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu...
A US-UK trade deal would be unlikely-according to US officials in 2013.
Thats an Obama official, and thats the Grauniad. I wouldnt give it any credence at all.A US-UK trade deal would be unlikely-according to US officials in 2013.
FiF said:
Bluebarge said:
FiF said:
as usual your ilk attack the messengers not the message.
Remind me who was labelling the pro-EU posters as "pricks"?Bluebarge said:
I think you're missing the point.
Our trade with the EU makes up a far greater proportion of our external trade than trade with the UK does of the EU's external trade, so any impact will be greater for us.
Trade will certainly sort itself out, but over what timescale and on what terms is completely unknown and unknowable. It is, however, likely to come about after extended and painful negotiation which will not do the UK's economy any good at all.
Control of our borders and armed forces is not in question from the EU. Our judiciary is independent but the UK has agreed to be subject to some EU legislation as a quid pro quo for access to the Single Market. This is in our interests because it ensures a level playing field for UK businesses and citizens within Europe. Parliament is still sovereign and can change that position if it wants> Parliament has also been happy to grant non-EU countries (the USA) rights to extradite UK citizens that go beyond those it grants to other members of the EU. So, being non-aligned does not necessarily mean being independent, does it?
I'm not sure it's that straightforward. The EU had a trade deficit with many (most?) non-UK countries as far as I'm aware (both the UK and EU are beholden to China). It'll be wanting to preserve positive balances where it can I would have thought.Our trade with the EU makes up a far greater proportion of our external trade than trade with the UK does of the EU's external trade, so any impact will be greater for us.
Trade will certainly sort itself out, but over what timescale and on what terms is completely unknown and unknowable. It is, however, likely to come about after extended and painful negotiation which will not do the UK's economy any good at all.
Control of our borders and armed forces is not in question from the EU. Our judiciary is independent but the UK has agreed to be subject to some EU legislation as a quid pro quo for access to the Single Market. This is in our interests because it ensures a level playing field for UK businesses and citizens within Europe. Parliament is still sovereign and can change that position if it wants> Parliament has also been happy to grant non-EU countries (the USA) rights to extradite UK citizens that go beyond those it grants to other members of the EU. So, being non-aligned does not necessarily mean being independent, does it?
Assuming we're still able to trade while negotiations are ongoing, I don't really see why our economy should suffer. As mentioned, the EU and Germany particularly (I think we're their no1 export market for cars for example) will still be wanting (needing) to push their goods this way. There should be little to prevent trade carrying on as normal until a proper arrangement is addressed. If the balance of trade were currently reversed I'd agree with you that we would have potential difficulties. But right now, not a chance.
Our ability to control our borders is already compromised by the EU. I'm not an anti-immigration jockey but we do not have control. EU desires for an army are surfacing and I simply do not trust the people in charge of the EU not to take further steps in that direction.
Parliament hasn't been especially inclined to any sort of effective action against EU largesse. I'm really hoping that the UK public tell our govt what we think of this in 2017 and force the issue.
This country voted in a government that wanted to reduce the interference of central government on the daily lives of its citizens (whether it's done that is moot). The way the EU is going is totally contrary to that. We already have too much meddling by political types, too much money being sucked away from where it's needed by the running of the machine and lining the pockets of career politicians and hangers on. The EU simply adds more. Only this time on a totally undemocratic basis. Strip it back to a purely trade arrangement and I'd personally be OK with it (subject to sensible terms). Anything beyond that is overstepping what's required.
PS Out of interest, are you dependent on providing goods and services to the EU?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff