So who wants to remain in the EU?

[alfie2244]

wolves_wanderer said:

alfie2244 said:

Why will that trade be taken away? Do you know this for a fact or is it a guess?

eta you do seem to switch from not knowing for certain,to being clear, to opinion, to facts randomly through your post.

Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 9th February 11:09

I think that regardless of the prevailing mood on here it is just as reasonable to have doubts as to blithely assume that everything will be fine in a Salmondesque kind of way. None of us know what will happen so the way that people expressing doubts are pulled up to have facts demanded when no such demand is made of those assuming no change is pretty daft.

I have no idea either but I do have an inner confidence in the UK's (and my own) abilities to thrive under pressure.

I accept everybody's' comfort levels are different the best holidays I ever had were unplanned and just heading in a general direction whereas my ex hated it and needed to know the ins and outs of where we were going, staying etc..despite her protestations we always got home, we survived and had many tales to tell after.

On a motoring theme, pre satnav, I traveled around the whole of Europe for over 3 years repatriating vehicles from above the Artic circle to Turkey with nothing more than a collection address and maybe a phone No...25 years later I am still here and not doing too badly.

As an aside, I often had more trouble getting back in at Dover than going through any other country EU or not ( Must admit though that the Cossack waking me to check passport at 3am on the Moscow overnight Express was quite scary)

So in summary I agree it is reasonable to have doubts but not reasonable to post those doubts as if they were facts.

Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 9th February 12:12

[plasticpig]

otolith said:

Completely reform the way that we subsidise agriculture in a way which would be impossible while trying to pacify all of the competing interests in the EU?

CAP stinks and always has done, it's a really bad argument for staying in.

Why subsidize agriculture at all? Subsides are incredibly anti competitive. Instead impose heavy import duties on food where production has been subsidized.

[AJS-]

It seems like nobody really *wants* to be in the EU. The arguments for remaining seem to revolve around inertia or fear about leaving, or this vain hope of reforming it. Apparently disregarding the fact that 40 years of trying to change it culminating in an apparently very real prospect of us leaving hasn't actually yielded any worthwhile changes.

A degree of pragmatism is always sensible but not the basis for the entire running of the country for decades on end.

[DavidJG]

AJS- said:

It seems like nobody really *wants* to be in the EU. The arguments for remaining seem to revolve around inertia or fear about leaving, or this vain hope of reforming it. Apparently disregarding the fact that 40 years of trying to change it culminating in an apparently very real prospect of us leaving hasn't actually yielded any worthwhile changes.

A degree of pragmatism is always sensible but not the basis for the entire running of the country for decades on end.

Speak for yourself. I'm happy in the EU - it's brought more good than bad for me personally. If the UK exits, I'll have to think long and hard about whether I stay in the UK.

[otolith]

plasticpig said:

otolith said:

Completely reform the way that we subsidise agriculture in a way which would be impossible while trying to pacify all of the competing interests in the EU?

CAP stinks and always has done, it's a really bad argument for staying in.

Why subsidize agriculture at all? Subsides are incredibly anti competitive. Instead impose heavy import duties on food where production has been subsidized.

Usually because we want to influence agricultural land use in order to achieve certain social or environmental objectives. But yes, not subsidising it at all would become an option, if that was what we wanted.

[AJS-]

DavidJG said:

Speak for yourself. I'm happy in the EU - it's brought more good than bad for me personally. If the UK exits, I'll have to think long and hard about whether I stay in the UK.

But looking at your arguments up above it seems like inertia and fear of the unknown rather than any positive case for EU membership.

If by you personally you mean your job is directly dependent on EU funding then fine, but to those of us not in that position it's more of an argument for you having a job than for EU membership.

What are the actual benefits? Would you advise Norway or Iceland or Switzerland to join the EU now?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Axionknight said:

Mario149 said:

I think this is a point worth considering. We are one of the major contributors to the EU, and from the charts I've seen our money equals that given by the 15 bottom countries or so. If we leave and without us it does go tits up, that's gonna have a pretty major effect on us.

Perhaps the EU should consider that very point before offering the UK a few derisory "reforms" that amount to absolutely squat.

Absolutely. the old `It is he who pays the piper calls the tune' saying seems to have been largely forgotten as far as the UK in the EU goes.
Their arrogance that we will continue to be the second largest net contributor into EU coffers, (not only in terms of the 55 million pound `membership' fee we pay every day, nor the millions of pounds in the little surprise fees they impose on the UK amongst others, which strangely don't apply to Germany or France???) but also in the fact that we import more from the EU, than we sell into the EU. and yet get so little in return (although I suspect there are some making big money out of it, (at the expense of the many) who want to remain members.
Odd how Germany pays in the most, and seem to have the biggest influence on the EU,s direction, yet the requests of the UK, its second largest net EU contributor of funds are largely ignored. also oddly by those who will be worst affected financially if the UK does leave the `club' as they will each have to stump up far more than they do now, to cover the shortfall that the UK `was' paying in to keep the `club' alive.
Something very rotten has always been, and is even now going on with the EU, with no indication that they want to change, or even consider and amend their corrupt ways in the slightest, which is why overall, OUT seems to be the way to go.

[Funkycoldribena]

DavidJG said:

Speak for yourself. I'm happy in the EU - it's brought more good than bad for me personally. If the UK exits, I'll have to think long and hard about whether I stay in the UK.

Care to elaborate?

[FiF]

plasticpig said:

£3.5 billion of it is returned as CAP payments to farmers. Not sure what the out camp would want to do about that. IIRC the biggest recipient of CAP payments is the National Trust.

Regardless of the discussions since you asked the question, the reality being pragmatic is that the subsidies would continue without change in the short term, except the payments would come from central government rather than EU via central government. It's the only sensible way to proceed.

Of course longer term then any subsidies would be adjusted according to our needs, not those of French farmers for example. We may decide that the shape and amount of CAP subsidies are absolutely brilliant and wish to continue them exactly as they are, unlikely IMO as CAP is and always was a complete crock.ain reason for me voting no in 75 as it happens. But we could decide what we want to do, it's very very unlikely, and undesirable IMO, to say, that's it no more subsidy or attempt to steer agricultural activity.

So in essence, in the short and medium turn, no change expected, nothing to fear, speaking practically.

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

[don4l]

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

FredClogs said:

don4l said:

No. My feelings are not based on emotion. They are based on experience.

You are mind-bogglingly patronising.

I have run my own business since 1992. I estimate that 5% of my operating costs are due to mindless EU regulation. (WEEE, RoHS etc)

I would make more profit, and employ more people, if we left the EU.

You mean you'd make more money if your staff and customers were forced to suck up lead all day and the local canal was littered with CFCs, PCBs and leaking batteries... Seriously? What the blithering fk?

so you're trying to say in your usual clumsy way that if we weren't in the EU we'd be look to pollute like there was no tomorrow? A return to pea-soupers perhaps?

No not at all, but be honest, left to their own devices without rules and regulation people tend towards chaos, it's not without precedence that companies and individuals will litter and pollute the environment or at least risk that to increase profit or perhaps they're just ignorant of the effects. I don't think anyone is arguing that Rohs and WEEE regulations aren't a good idea, Don4l's argument was that he begrudges the cost involved.

If the money went towards protecting the environment, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Unfortunately, this money is used to provide a facility that I haven't used once in 23 years.

This money comes straight off the bottom line, and so makes me less competetive than some foreign companies.

The RoHS regulations closed down one of my suppliers with the loss of 80 jobs.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

That's a very limited sub-set of regulation. EFTA includes Switzerland, don't forget. If we were just in EFTA, not the EEA, like Switzerland, we'd be free of most EU legislation in technical terms, but like Switzerland, we'd have to comply with most in reality.

[LittleEnus]

DavidJG said:

Speak for yourself. I'm happy in the EU - it's brought more good than bad for me personally. If the UK exits, I'll have to think long and hard about whether I stay in the UK.

Okay then, bye.

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

That's a very limited sub-set of regulation. EFTA includes Switzerland, don't forget. If we were just in EFTA, not the EEA, like Switzerland, we'd be free of most EU legislation in technical terms, but like Switzerland, we'd have to comply with most in reality.

Limited sub-set of regulations. Norway complies with 3,000, in the same time UK has had to comply with 18,000. Literally a limited sub-set alright.

Anyway Norway model is only one option for an early stepping stone in the whole process. But at outset we'd be complying with all the regulations on the basis of continuity and stability.

[v8250]

don4l said:

The RoHS regulations closed down one of my suppliers with the loss of 80 jobs.

What was your supplier doing to be closed down by RoHS? Normally, the last thing any regulatory body wants to do is to force a business to close. They normally work with the organisation to implement safety change where/when needed.

I have seen cases of companies closed, but only where there's been continual lack of safety, poor safety record and frequent disregard for third party safety...and where the product being made is of such poor design it is simply not suitable to market. And genuine question, why/how did RoHS force the company closure?

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

FredClogs said:

don4l said:

No. My feelings are not based on emotion. They are based on experience.

You are mind-bogglingly patronising.

I have run my own business since 1992. I estimate that 5% of my operating costs are due to mindless EU regulation. (WEEE, RoHS etc)

I would make more profit, and employ more people, if we left the EU.

You mean you'd make more money if your staff and customers were forced to suck up lead all day and the local canal was littered with CFCs, PCBs and leaking batteries... Seriously? What the blithering fk?

so you're trying to say in your usual clumsy way that if we weren't in the EU we'd be look to pollute like there was no tomorrow? A return to pea-soupers perhaps?

No not at all, but be honest, left to their own devices without rules and regulation people tend towards chaos, it's not without precedence that companies and individuals will litter and pollute the environment or at least risk that to increase profit or perhaps they're just ignorant of the effects. I don't think anyone is arguing that Rohs and WEEE regulations aren't a good idea, Don4l's argument was that he begrudges the cost involved.

Are you suggesting that the British people would choose to live in filth were those lovely clean Europeans not to impose their will upon us?

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

That's a very limited sub-set of regulation. EFTA includes Switzerland, don't forget. If we were just in EFTA, not the EEA, like Switzerland, we'd be free of most EU legislation in technical terms, but like Switzerland, we'd have to comply with most in reality.

Limited sub-set of regulations. Norway complies with 3,000, in the same time UK has had to comply with 18,000. Literally a limited sub-set alright.

Anyway Norway model is only one option for an early stepping stone in the whole process. But at outset we'd be complying with all the regulations on the basis of continuity and stability.

You are confusing the EEA and EFTA. Norway is in the EEA, as well as EFTA. There is no veto on EEA regulation.

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

FredClogs said:

don4l said:

No. My feelings are not based on emotion. They are based on experience.

You are mind-bogglingly patronising.

I have run my own business since 1992. I estimate that 5% of my operating costs are due to mindless EU regulation. (WEEE, RoHS etc)

I would make more profit, and employ more people, if we left the EU.

You mean you'd make more money if your staff and customers were forced to suck up lead all day and the local canal was littered with CFCs, PCBs and leaking batteries... Seriously? What the blithering fk?

so you're trying to say in your usual clumsy way that if we weren't in the EU we'd be look to pollute like there was no tomorrow? A return to pea-soupers perhaps?

No not at all, but be honest, left to their own devices without rules and regulation people tend towards chaos, it's not without precedence that companies and individuals will litter and pollute the environment or at least risk that to increase profit or perhaps they're just ignorant of the effects. I don't think anyone is arguing that Rohs and WEEE regulations aren't a good idea, Don4l's argument was that he begrudges the cost involved.

Are you suggesting that the British people would choose to live in filth were those lovely clean Europeans not to impose their will upon us?

No more than any other nationality, but the reality of human behaviour is that in the absence of good leadership, regulations and the rule of law people tend toward selfishness and greed, and corporate business even more so.

The real question I have is not how can we cut the regulation on British business but how can we get the same level of protection afforded to the people and environment of places like China, Eastern Europe and the Nigerian Delta? Wider democratic controlling bodies such as the EU is one way of doing it, ethical colonialism might be another way but just appealing to people to do the right thing is bound to fail.

[v8250]

Re' EU [read EN/BS] regulatory standards are there for the protection and benefit of all. Just because a given market has to comply with regulatory and safety standards does not mean this is, in any way, the fault of the EU. In all industry sectors, worldwide, individual industries correctly operate to and within their stated standards; whether RoHS, WEEE, CoSHH, ATEX, FDA, cGMP...the list is naturally exhaustive. One understands that compliance is, rightly so, critical...and if a business can not survive within their sector due to too high an operational compliance cost then the business needs to diversify and/or re-structure to ensure it is viable; and that is down to market viability [does the market/business model stack up] and management ability [do the business owners have the skills to make it happen].

I have a well known colleague who buys failing businesses...many household names...post acquisition, the first thing he does is fire the management team, the individuals who've driven the company into the ground replacing them with proven management who know how to get things done; his answer is, "The one part of a business that's always replaceable is the senior management team...it's rarely the employees who are responsible for business failures."

This, of course, is not reflective on any individual/s within this discussion...

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

That's a very limited sub-set of regulation. EFTA includes Switzerland, don't forget. If we were just in EFTA, not the EEA, like Switzerland, we'd be free of most EU legislation in technical terms, but like Switzerland, we'd have to comply with most in reality.

Limited sub-set of regulations. Norway complies with 3,000, in the same time UK has had to comply with 18,000. Literally a limited sub-set alright.

Anyway Norway model is only one option for an early stepping stone in the whole process. But at outset we'd be complying with all the regulations on the basis of continuity and stability.

You are confusing the EEA and EFTA. Norway is in the EEA, as well as EFTA. There is no veto on EEA regulation.

No I'm not confusing them at all, I'm talking about the EEA agreement January 1 1994 which brought together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market

From here report to the Storting.

"6.1.4 The right of veto

According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto.

So far, this right has not been exercised. This is partly because when EU legislation is to be integrated into the EEA Agreement it is submitted to the EEA Joint Committee at the final stage of an extensive process of information and consultation between the contracting parties. The purpose of this process is to ensure that agreement is reached on such decisions."


Personal comment, the expansionist behaviour of the EU both in terms of territory and in competencies which it is increasingly claiming for itself is, nevertheless, reducing Norway's room for manoeuvre and ,furthermore, because the EU is increasingly making actions outside the scope of the EEA agreement then competitiveness issues could arise.

But again to remind the Norway option isn't the end solution, merely one that is possible as the legal instruments already exist.