The UK and the European Union - in or out? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

EUROSCEPTICS & UKIP CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS

In the late 1980s the nations of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) began to seriously contemplate joining the EU, there were many reasons for this, but they included the realisation that it was the only way forward for trade and prosperity, in the case of Sweden it was also the fact that several large companies made it clear they would relocate if Sweden stayed outside the EU.

Current EFTA members: Iceland - Lichtenstein - Norway - Switzerland

EFTA members who joined the EU: - Austria - Denmark - Portugal - Sweden - United Kingdom - Finland

In 1994 the European Economic Area was formed (EEA), this was a compromise organisation for those members of EFTA who did not or could not join the European Union, joining the EEA meant access to EU markets, but the deal also meant accepting EU rules, even though these states were not / are not EU members.

THE QUESTION TO THE EUROSCEPTICS IS THIS: After leaving the EU, would the UK be free of all EU rules, regulations, directives and laws?

And the straighforward answer is: NO  and here is why:-

A meat production company in Lincolnshire is close to signing a multi-million pound deal with a European supermarket chain, just before the two managing directors take out their pens to sign the agreement, the boss of the supermarket chain pulls out a list of conditions.

The list of conditions consist of EU rules, unfortunately Britain has left the EU and unless the British meat producer conforms to EU standards the deal cannot go ahead, the rules cover everything from animal welfare, temperature control, employee rights, labeling, weight, moisture content and hygiene.

So no matter what happens in the future, the UK will always have to accept EU laws

Think of Norway as an example of a European nation outside the European Union, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area ( the EEA ), and as such has to accept into law virtualy every EU rule, regulation, directive and law, furthermore Norway has had to sign up to many of the EU treaties.

Norway has no say and no vote on any of the EU legislation which it accepts, and this is exactly how Britain would end up, inside the EU the UK influences legislation, it does have a say, and it does have a vote, unlike Norway.

A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT "JUST LIKE SWITZERLAND" [ Nigel Farage ]

According to UKIP, the future under them would be simple, all we need to do is leave the EU and sign up to a new free trade agreement, and the future would be bright  , but a free trade agreement ?, lets look at that word "agreement", an agreement is not one sided, it is between the parties that make the agreement, and lets face facts here, the EU will call the shots, not Britain.

The European Union is not going to change its rules to cater for a single nation of 60 million, especialy when that nation has left the EU but still wants all the benefits of belonging, namely trade.

I am afraid that under such circumstances, Germany, France, Italy and the rest would say "our way or not at all", the best solution by far is to simply remain within the EU and go forward into the future together.

Those advocating out use Sovereignty as a reason, the ability to have laws which have not 'been made in Europe' governing Britain.........Many of those so called EU laws are to do with protecting European workers, including British workers, from multinational company owners.
Will all those advocating an Out Vote say which laws they want to see repealed.

Will a Britain outside of Europe be able to defend it's workers from the demands of multinational companies wanting to rid themselves of employment protection laws? will it be able to control bankers, we know that the current British government spent a lot on trying to protect bankers from an EU rule on their bonus's, would be as willing to protect workers rights?.......

As an aside, the current passport issued in Britain has European Community at the top of it.....Just think all of these will become defunct, do you think that the government will be generous enough to replace them for free, in the event of an out vote?......

I think a list of all the legislation people would want to repeal after Brexit would be revealing - my understanding is that you're right and the 'made in Europe' laws mostly have to do with various protections for ordinary people against the rich and powerful

I should dearly love to know who is right in the current 'legally binding (or not) ' question. Is it the repulsive Gove, or the unspeakable Cameron?

Any lawyers out there...?

Thatcher began to eliminate all opposition to Tory dogma by abolishing the London County Council, followed by a considerable reduction in local authority spending power. As of next April Councils will have extra "social" responsibilities whilst enjoying a cut in funding from central government.

If Cameron's army of occupation should become able to do just as they like once relieved of oversight by the EU, it's not difficult to imagine the result.

© Craftcuts.com

"Marching to the sound of a different drum"

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/march+to+a+different+drummer

Phil Hornby wrote:-
I should dearly love to know who is right in the current 'legally binding (or not) ' question.

The package of reforms negotiated by Cameron cannot be reversed by European judges, according to the president of the EU Council, Donald Tusk. He told MEPs the deal was "legally binding and irreversible".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35653155

“It would be inconceivable for the European Court to ignore a binding commitment by all member states which has been endorsed by a popular referendum." (Prof Takis Tridimas, director of the Centre for European Law at King's College London)

While some legal experts acknowledge a legal challenge is theoretically possible, the European Court of Justice would give substantial weight to the fact all 28 member states had agreed both the deal and that it was compatible with the existing treaties. That makes the chances of a successful legal challenge slim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35653495

The former UK attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was unequivocal on the ‘Today’ programme this morning: Gove is wrong. (Not for the first time, as many teachers will concur.) Grieve also pointed out how Brexit would turn 2 million Brits living abroad into illegal immigrants. Is that what decent people on the left of politics want to see?

Ivan - thanks for that explanation.

Gratifying to see Tories contradicting each other and the pipsqueak Gove making an ass of himself.

But never say 'never' when anything to do with the law is concerned...

Listening to a debate the EU whether to stay in or leave, there reasons for staying are getting worse in regards to Workers rights and protection I will add that when Thatchers Tory gov't was taking our Trade Unions to the Dentist to extract there teeth "WE WHERE IN THE EU" the Trade Union bill going through the HOC today to extract more teeth from our Unions and YES we still are in the EU but workers rights and protection are still going down the plughole.

Another topic was safety aginst Terrorism what a laugh because that last time I looked France is in the EU but the EU did not stop the TWO attacks in Paris within months of one another the last one was terrible in the loss of lives.

I tend to think that those that want to remain in the EU want the best of both worlds the Gravy Train in the EU and the one that is in the UK thanks to the Tory party.

Redflag. Christine Lagarde has indeed been linked to financial irregularities, both in Greece and in connection with the businessman Bernard Tapie. She was the finance minister in Nicolas Sarkozy’s right-wing government in France, before becoming the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. The IMF is not part of the EU, so if her activities are supposed to be one of your ‘justifications’ for Brexit, you are very wide of the mark yet again.

No doubt there is corruption in the EU, as there is in most large organisations, and anyway about 80% of the EU's budget is spent in the member countries. Corruption is a reason for reform, not for leaving the EU. You're well aware of the sleaze and cronyism surrounding the British government, yet you didn't want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom because of it, did you?

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1110-how-corrupt-is-britain-by-david-whyte-ed

Redflag wrote:-
Another topic was safety aginst Terrorism what a laugh because that last time I looked France is in the EU but the EU did not stop the TWO attacks in Paris.

There’s nothing funny about terrorism, nor in trying to make political capital out of it. There’s no such thing as 100% security, terrorist attacks can happen anywhere at any time. The outrages in Paris were carried out by home-grown terrorists, so international co-operation was hardly likely to make any difference. France was a particular target at the time because it was the first country to join the USA in the bombing of Syria, a decision made by the French government, not the EU.

As the UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement, we do not have open borders and have continued to carry out checks on who is entering this country. The French agreed to us doing some of those checks on their soil, both at the Channel ports and at the Eurostar terminal at Paris Nord station. That arrangement wouldn’t continue if we left the EU. All those people who camp in and around Calais would have no difficulty in leaving the EU as well, by coming to Britain. They would have to be stopped at Dover and Folkestone, and the camps would then be in Kent.

Then there is the European Arrest Warrant, which is valid throughout the EU. Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state, so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period. It is through the EU that countries exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism. Twelve former defence chiefs have said the UK is safer in the EU, but perhaps you think you know better than them.

I would not believe ONE WORD that comes out of Sturgeons gob, because she is looking for ANY reason to have another Independence referendum that is why SNP was set up in the beginning and there not called Tartan Tories for NOWT.

Redflag. Under the SNP government in Scotland, prescriptions have been free since 2011 (they are £8.20 per item in Tory England), while student tuition is free (but £9,000 a year and rising in Tory England). That doesn’t sound very Tory to me. On the other hand, Ruth Davidson has said she would scrap free prescription charges given the chance - that’s what Tories do.

Angus Robertson reminded us in the House of Commons on Monday that the SNP is a pro-European party: “Public opinion in Scotland by a majority supports membership of the European Union. Every single Scottish MP supports remaining in the EU…… If we are forced out of the EU, I am certain the public in Scotland will demand a referendum on Scottish independence, and we will protect our place in Europe.”

As I said previously, Professor John Curtice points out that polling consistently shows support for Remain is higher in Scotland than in England: "There is no doubt: Scotland is markedly more pro-European, markedly more likely to say it's going to vote to remain, than is the UK as a whole”. He argues that much of that is down to Scotland’s relationship with the SNP.

Whether or not you believe what “comes out of Sturgeon’s gob” has no relevance on a thread for “rational and enlightened discussion about the EU”. It’s fairly obvious that, since almost 50% of Scots vote for the SNP these days, and as the SNP is strongly pro-EU, then most of its supporters are likely to agree with that stance, just as the vast majority of UKIP supporters are for Brexit. Curtice also points out that Labour's position in Scotland largely mirrors the mostly pro-EU position of party members south of the border.

http://beta.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35602861

The Commissoiners are still unlected and more than likely they are the heads of big businesses & Corporations

Redflag. You are completely wrong, yet again. First you call the commissioners “bureaucrats”, now you’re contradicting yourself and suggesting that they’re something else. It might be more responsible if you did some research instead of posting guesswork. A lot of people visit this forum as guests and read the threads, as the number of ‘views’ on each one indicates. I don’t see why they should be subject to misleading information; they can buy ‘The Sun’, ‘The Daily Mail’ or ‘The Daily Express’ if they want that.

You could have taken the trouble to look up who these EU commissioners actually are, and you would have found that 26 of them are politicians, one is a former ambassador and one is an economist. There isn’t a single “head of big business or corporation” among them:-

Jean-Claude Juncker – Luxembourg politician
Frans Timmermans – Dutch politician
Federica Mogherini – Italian politician
Jyrki Katainen – former PM of Finland
Valdis Dombrovskis – Latvian politician
Andrus Ansip – Estonian politician
Věra Jourová - Czech politician
Günther Oettinger – German politician
Pierre Moscovici – former French cabinet minister
Marianne Thyssen – Belgian politician
Corina Crețu – Romanian politician
Johannes Hahn – Austrian politician
Dimitris Avramopoulos – Greek politician
Vytenis Andriukaitis – Lithuanian politician and heart surgeon
Jonathan Hill – former leader of the UK House of Lords
Elżbieta Bieńkowska – former Polish government minister
Miguel Arias Cañete – Spanish politician
Neven Mimica – Croatian politician
Margrethe Vestager – Danish politician
Violeta Bulc – former deputy PM of Slovenia
Cecilia Malmström – Swedish politician
Karmenu Vella – Maltese politician
Tibor Navracsics – Hungarian politician and lawyer
Carlos Moedas – Portuguese politician
Phil Hogan – Irish politician
Christos Stylianides – Cypriot politician
Maroš Šefčovič - former Slovak ambassador to Israel
Kristalina Georgieva – Bulgarian economist

The Europhobes usually complain that Brussels is “dictating to the UK”, or some such similar claptrap, so it seems odd to be told the opposite, namely that the EU isn’t protecting workers’ rights. Even if that happened to be true, it wouldn’t be an argument for leaving the EU, since workers’ rights wouldn’t be any safer if left entirely in the hands of a vicious Tory government.

The fact is that the European Court of Justice is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law. So if the Tories try to remove, for example, the right to 28 days of annual paid leave or the right to take maternity leave, a trade union or an individual could present a case to the ECJ. That court is one of the main reasons why rabid right-wing Tories and UKIP want us to leave the EU, so that it won’t be able to interfere with their aim to drive us all back to Victorian working and living conditions. And it’s no doubt one of the reasons why the TUC supports the Remain campaign. Personally, I have a lot more faith in the intentions of the TUC than those of Farage, Lawson, Howard, Boris Johnson, Hannan, Grayling, Redwood and Duncan Smith.

Frances O’Grady writes:-

“Working people have a huge stake in the referendum because workers’ rights are on the line. It’s the EU that guarantees workers their rights to paid holidays, parental leave, equal treatment for part-timers, and much more. These rights can’t be taken for granted. There are no guarantees that any government will keep them if the UK leaves the EU. And without the back-up of EU laws, unscrupulous employers will have free rein to cut many of their workers’ hard-won benefits and protections. The current government has already shown their appetite to attack workers’ rights. Unions in Britain campaigned for these rights and we don’t want them put in jeopardy. The question for everyone who works for a living is this: can you risk a leap into the unknown on workplace rights?”

https://www.tuc.org.uk/international-issues/europe/employment-and-social-policy/workplace-issues/tuc-report-outlines

Now add to the above "Outers" the name of Michael Howard, the tendency for Eurosceptic MPs to be Tory, male and from the "Old Guard" and it's something of a relief to see that these are not people with whom I might share any kind of common bond.

Ivan wrote:There’s nothing funny about terrorism, nor in trying to make political capital out of it. There’s no such thing as 100% security, terrorist attacks can happen anywhere at any time. The outrages in Paris were carried out by home-grown terrorists, so international co-operation was hardly likely to make any difference. France was a particular target at the time because it was the first country to join the USA in the bombing of Syria, a decision made by the French government, not the EU.

As the UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement, we do not have open borders and have continued to carry out checks on who is entering this country. The French agreed to us doing some of those checks on their soil, both at the Channel ports and at the Eurostar terminal at Paris Nord station. That arrangement wouldn’t continue if we left the EU. All those people who camp in and around Calais would have no difficulty in leaving the EU as well, by coming to Britain. They would have to be stopped at Dover and Folkestone, and the camps would then be in Kent.

Then there is the European Arrest Warrant, which is valid throughout the EU. Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state, so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period. It is through the EU that countries exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism. Twelve former defence chiefs have said the UK is safer in the EU, but perhaps you think you know better than them.

I have read your post Ivan and it looks like what you are saying is  the EU that is creating the terrorist, just like Germany created the NAZIS??

Under the SNP GPs are having to cut what they spend on there patients medication , and jobs are been lost in the Public sector also in Educations & Nursery nurses I would suggest you take a closer look at what is actually going on in Scotland Ivan, the free perscriptions and freeze in Council tax is nothing more than window dressing to keep there voters happy & to attract voters from other parties but this May will see how muh the Scots are allowing the SNP to pull the wool over there eyes.

Here Is Why Brexiters Are Completely Wrong On Trade

From an article by Henning Meyer:-

You often hear that “the rest of Europe sells us more stuff than we sell them and therefore they will give us a free trade deal as they don’t want to shoot themselves in the foot”. The first thing is that this isn’t a 1:1 comparison of UK vs. The Rest. The Rest doesn’t exist as one unit as it is a group of 27 countries. So the comparison is 1:27 and 27:1 – not 1:1.

Outside the single market, the terms of trade would worsen and there would be an accumulated effect for the UK: worse trade terms with Germany (10% of exports), the Netherlands (7.9% of exports), France (6.3% of exports), and so on. The UK would have worse trade terms with 27 countries, many of which are key export destinations.

In the case of worsening terms of trade, Germany would have worse relations with one market: the UK, representing 6.4% of its total trade. The UK is an important market but there is no cumulative effect. So if there are worsening terms of trade, which the EU almost certainly would have to enforce, the UK will be much harder hit than any of the remaining 27 states. This is a very important point that is often muddied by ‘us and The Rest’ rhetoric.

Another argument is that the UK is global in its outlook and should not be forced to focus on European trade. This is nonsense. Germany is a global exporter and has a trade volume more than three times the UK figure ($1.38 trillion vs $453 billion) whilst being a member of the very same EU. If there is an issue with UK export performance, look at the products and services on offer. The EU is not holding the UK back from selling globally.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/here-is-why-brexiters-are-completely-wrong-on-trade/

Anthony Hilton of ‘The Evening Standard’ once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. Murdoch replied: “That’s easy. When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice”.

That might help to explain why Michael Gove is one of those odious specimens who have crawled out of the woodwork to support Brexit. He used to be a Murdoch journalist, and when he first arrived at Westminster in 2005 as a backbench MP, ‘The Times’ topped up his salary with a £60,000-a-year column. His wife has also worked for the paper in the past. Gove has had frequent meetings with Murdoch, and when he was education secretary, Murdoch offered to build an academy school in London.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/feb/26/schools-crusade-gove-murdoch

Murdoch and other media tycoons hate the EU because they fear they will be subject to greater press regulation from Brussels. That’s why they print so many negative stories about the EU in their crap newspapers, hoping that the gullible will swallow them. If you want to do Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay brothers a big favour, vote for Brexit.  

Red, I think what Ivan is saying is that indigenous young men in many European countries are espousing the cause of the terrorists and may be using acts of terrorism as a form of protest against the actions of their own governments - that's not at all the same as saying that the EU is creating terrorism.

To be frank, I don't really understand your reasoning in arguing for Brexit and I for one would be pleased if you would provide us with the reasoned argument in favour of your position, backed up with some evidence that I could check out. There's a lot of hysterical stuff in the media on both sides so it's quite hard for me to really understand all the arguments - Ivan is doing his best to present the arguments for remaining in the EU and he makes good sense to me - maybe you could help us all by pointing us in the direction of some respectable opinions from economists, military experts etc on the other side of the argument.

I'd hate to see Cutting Edge degenerate into a squabbling shop like some forums. One of the things I've always liked about us is that mostly people will be clear about the difference between opinion and fact - and will present facts in support of their opinions

Boatlady I have already laid out my reasons for Brexit when Ivan asked me, but because you must have missed them here is just a couple of the many reasons I have to leave the EU.

1) The laws for all EU members are made by UNELECTED Commissioners, plus if we stay in the EU we will be bound by the TTIP treaty which will mean the death of our public services & yes our NHS. These type of treaties already have 23 countries in the private courts attached to these treaties, Austrailia is just just one and what did Oz do that was so bad they had the CHEEK to put cigarettes into plain packaging FLIMSY to say the least but these big compamies & Corporations PROFITS were suffering it was not because they where not making profits but they thought but because they wanted bigger profits.

I was listening to QT Extra Time Radio 5 Live when some one phoned in to ask a question, the question he asked was is it true that the EU has not has its books audited for over 11 years John Pienar answered it was true because it appears that £130 Million has gone astray maybe if they they put there hand down the back of there sofa as Osborne did they may find it ??

Thank you Ivan for your good post, I would say to Henning Meyer if the EU wants to charge the UK huge tarrifs for importing our goods into the EU, I would say what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander I am certain that BMW cars and other products the EU wants to sell us would not want to pay huge tarrifs.

Maybe you could refer me to some sources for these points you are making - I know the Sun, the Mail and the Express are publishing articles about the problems with EU membership - the publications I am reading are making the opposite argument - but I don't know of any respected source that backs up a clear argument for Brexit - I'd be grateful if you could point me in the direction of one - when the vote comes up, I want to be as well informed as possible.

In relation to the commissioners being unelected - who appoints them?

BOATLADY Let me put the record straight the only newspapers I buy and read is the Daily Mirror or the Gaurdian I have not bought the Sun since it insulted the Hillsborough 96 the rest of the right wing press you mention are not even suitable to wipe my ASS. As for the Commissioner and WHO elects them I am still trying to find that out, one more thing as to TTIP the only people to gain from it is the people Big companies and big Corporations because if they do not make enough profit they can always put the country concerned into there special courts attached to the treaty and SUE the knickers off the country so either way these big companies & Corporations get there profits.

Where I get my information from is the RT channel two programs I watch is Max Keiser or Going Underground, also today Radio 4 Any Questions at 1 .00pm with any answers following at 2.00pm, I also listen to QT Extra Time on Radio5 Live it istarts at 10.00pm and has a phone in normally when QT is finished on BBC1 I go back onto Radio5 Live it is on until 1.00am with people phoning in to give there opinion on what happened on QT with a lot of LIES been pointed out mostly by the Tory on the panel.

If you are on twitter take a look at the NHA party its is OUR NHS own political party, they will tell you a lot more about the TTIP treaty I have never clicked on so many links since joining twitter Dr Clive Peedell is a consultant doctor who runs the NHA party.

Redflag. You clearly haven’t understood Herr Meyer’s article. The EU doesn’t sell us goods as one entity, there are 27 separate countries trading with us.

If we left the EU, the Germans would still enjoy free trade with 26 other countries in Europe, but we would no longer have free trade for the 10% of our exports which go to Germany. If we left the EU, the Dutch would still enjoy free trade with 26 other countries in Europe, but we would no longer have free trade for the 7.9% of our exports which go to the Netherlands. And on it would go, country by country.

Do you want us to get involved in a trade war with 27 other countries? Despite the rubbish which Farage and others spout, we need the countries of the EU far more than they need us. That's just one of many reasons why Brexit is an even more stupid idea than voting for the Tories, where at least we get the chance to kick them out after five years.

Yes, I follow the NHA party just as you do.
I didn't say you read the Sun - only that the arguments you seem to be putting forward are the same as those the Sun and those other papers do.
I'm aware that TTIP is a treaty which favours big corporations etc - my impression is that it is something that is being aggressively pushed and that other EU nations (France, for example) feel more than a little ambivalent about it - however, as we currently have a right wing government that openly favours big business and the big corporations, I don't believe you will find that they are going to oppose TTIP whether we are in or out of the EU.
We can't guarantee a Labour government next time and we may well be stuck with this lot, who will continue to erode and destroy the rights and protections of our ordinary citizens, and may well be more able to do so without the checks and balances provided by membership of the EU. Never forget, the favoured trading partners of Cameron et al are China, with its abominable human rights record and India with its openly racist Prime Minister - I really don't want to live in a country that takes its lead from those regimes - at least in the EU, there's a common consensus that workers should have fair pay for a day's work, that there should be some form of affordable health provision for all, universal suffrage and education, freedom of speech and all the many other benefits of civilisation.

As Ivan has acknowledged in other posts, the EU is not perfect, there is corruption and waste as in any large institution, civil rights and protections are under threat - but we do need to clearly contemplate the alternatives before discarding what we have.

I'm going to try and post a link to a piece I read in the New Statesman recently that I think makes a good argument for staying in - maybe you can find me an article somewhere that makes the case for Brexit - Twitter and radio programmes are all very well, but I'd like to see something a bit more weighty to influence my thinking on such an important topic.

I can see the dilemma for folk who see Cameron, Osborne, May, Hammond and Fallon on one side of an argument and Gove, Duncan Smith (spit) , Redwood, Patel , Johnson and Whittingdale on the other.

Aside of the key issue, it may for those citizens be like trying to decide between taking poison or having pins stuck in their eyes...

https://t.co/Z8CKVsJlkg
Link is to a short opinion piece by Liam Young that outlines some arguments for staying in the EU, despite concerns about it as an institution. Please read for the detail of his argument.

He points out that we have the EU to thank for such vital employment legislation as the Working Time Directive - without which the junior doctors have a much less effective argument.

He also points out that moving out of Europe will support many of our current government's less attractive ambitions - a stricter border, limits on benefits for taxpaying workers and centralised control - a right wing conservative government that exists without any system of checks and balances

This is only an opinion piece and you may choose to disagree with the opinion expressed - but personally I would want to know a lot about how we will protect those basic human and civil rights currently protected by the EU if we leave.

Perhaps some of your authorities can explain that for me, Red?

Redflag wrote:-
If we stay in the EU we will be bound by the TTIP

“It is anachronistic that, in the 21st century, Europeans and Americans still impose customs duties on each other's products.” (Jean-Claude Juncker)

Is the TTIP necessarily all bad? Our Tory government claims that it could add £10bn to the UK economy, £80bn to the US and £100bn to the EU every year. It says shoppers would benefit by the removal of EU import tariffs on popular goods, such as jeans and cars. It might even mean that British lamb and venison could be exported to the USA. The main Westminster parties broadly support TTIP, though Labour has called for the NHS to be exempted from the investor-state dispute settlement measures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30493297

And as I’ve pointed out previously, we can't protect ourselves from the TTIP by leaving the EU, so it isn’t a valid reason for doing so. The Americans have stated that they will not give us a separate trade agreement if we leave the EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-we-cant-protect-ourselves-from-ttip-by-leaving-europe-heres-why-a6853876.html

Boris Johnson said: “Out is out,” before adding: “What I want is to get out and then negotiate a series of trade arrangements around the world. "

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-in-eu-u-turn-as-he-rules-out-second-referendum/ar-BBq4AMD?li=BBoPRmx

So there is the entire explanation for BoJo's attitude to the Referendum. Boris sees himself strutting the World Stage, shaking hands with foreign Leaders and pontificating on TV at daily reports on "progress" for at least a couple of years once Cameron has been shuffled off to the Board of a well-known bank.

Boris heaven!

Redflag. On 8 February, you stated on this forum that “the EU has not has its books audited in 20 years”. I then posted the truth – that the EU’s annual budget is audited every year by the Luxembourg-based Court of Auditors.

https://fullfact.org/europe/has-eu-budget-been-rejected-auditors-past-18-years/

Now today you’ve posted that “the EU has not has its books audited for over 11 years”. It doesn’t matter how many times you post that lie, it will still be a lie.

Member states control 80% of EU funds with the remainder managed directly by the Commission. This means that, by and large, member states themselves are responsible for detecting and correcting errors. The organisations and companies that receive EU funding are on public record.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/money/expenditure/index_en.htm

The total EU budget for 2015 was €145.3 billion (£114.4 billion). You state, without providing any sources, that “£130 million has gone astray”. That’s spread over 28 countries – and since when? Was it last year, over eleven years, or over the history of the EU and its predecessors in title, the EC and the EEC, since 1957?

Let’s assume the worst and assume your figure of £130 million was just for last year. That amount represents 0.11% of last year's EU budget of £114.4 billion. That’s hardly a reason for leaving the EU. You and I are well aware of the corruption surrounding our Tory government, which is far worse than anything that is happening in the EU, but I don't recall you seeing that as a reason for Scotland breaking away from the UK.

Ivan I was listening to QT Extra Time on Radio 5 Live, when some one phoned in and asked about this question & John Pienar replied that the books had not been signed off for 11 years becuase there was a short fall of £130 MILLION in other words the EU could not account for a missing £130 Million so where has that money gone John Pienar also suggested there was a fiddle of some sort going on .

OW I do not know if you can remmeber a few years ago Southern Ireland had a referendum and came back with the answer NO the EU refused to accept it so the people of Southern Ireland where sent back until they came up with the answer that PLEASED the EU which was YES, so if the people of the UK may not get there answer of NO refused (if that is the way the people of the UK vote on 23rd June) but on this time will only tell.

IVAN You seem to suggest that I am stupid I know how things works Companies within the EU buy from & sell to Companies within the UK, its a pity the EU prefers to buy STEEL from China than the steel from one of those within the EU ie UK

Red, you keep saying that the EU have not been audited and then say that there is £130 million missing.....How would that figure be arrived at if it were not the case that the books have been audited and the fact that the money was found to be missing?

You seem to want it both ways....

How does it feel to be standing on the side of IDS?........The man who has been hell bent on driving benefit claimants in to low paid jobs and can only achieve this by ridding Britain of its EU employment protection laws.......


I asked which EU laws you wanted to see scrapped but have yet to say which ones they are..........

Redflag wrote:IVAN You seem to suggest that I am stupid I know how things works Companies within the EU buy from & sell to Companies within the UK, its a pity the EU prefers to buy STEEL from China than the steel from one of those within the EU ie UK

It's called doing business with the rest of the world....something the Britex groups seem to want to see, do you think that Britain out of the EU will not buy its steel from the cheapest source?...at the moment that's China.. and it will still be in the event of an exit vote........

Phil Hornby wrote:-
I can see the dilemma for folk who see Cameron, Osborne, May, Hammond and Fallon on one side of an argument and Gove, Duncan Smith (spit) , Redwood, Patel , Johnson and Whittingdale on the other.

We also have Farage, Grayling, Lawson and ‘something of the night’ Howard “on the other”.  

I know we should be considering policies rather than personalities, but it certainly feels strange to be voting the same way as Cameron and Osborne. Perhaps a better way to think about the politicians on either side of the argument is to look at how those we respect intend to vote. It ought to tell us something when Tony Blair, Alan Johnson, Ed Miliband, Liz Kendall, Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood are all on the side.

Yesterday on Twitter I was sworn at twice and called a traitor for posting links to articles supporting the EU. This referendum has seen all sorts crawl out of the woodwork, including xenophobes, racists, ‘little Englanders’ and losers looking for someone or something to blame for their own shortcomings. I’ve yet to see one valid reason why we should leave, or a vision of what Britain might be like outside the EU. It’s hard not to conclude that most of those supporting Brexit are either stupid (the average UKIP voter) or malevolent (like Duncan Smith and Grayling).

As I said, we should be considering policies. Thirty years ago, a large number of coastal towns in the UK still pumped raw sewage into the sea and polluted the beaches. Of course, a British government could have forced a clean-up, but it took an EU regulation to make it happen. Thirty years ago, there was no requirement to allow disabled access to buildings and transport. It was EU regulation which brought that about. It was the EU which broke open the cartel of airliners and enabled the birth of easyJet, Ryanair and low-cost air travel. (Which reminds me, I’ll be in Austria on 23 June and will need to sort out either a postal or a proxy vote!)

For me, one of the most important issues is that the European Court of Justice is the supreme authority for those laws passed by the EU (but not for laws passed by national governments, despite what the Brexit brigade will tell you). That means workplace rights such as 28 days of paid leave annually and statutory maternity leave can’t be scrapped by national governments. Be in no doubt that outside the EU, the likes of Duncan Smith would waste no time in ending them.

EU exit 'risks British science'

From an article by Pallab Ghosh:-

Nobel Prize winner Professor Sir Paul Nurse has said that UK research would suffer if the country were to leave the EU. He was speaking at a news briefing about the impact of a withdrawal on UK science. He was joined by other research leaders who also want Britain to remain inside the EU.

Nurse said: "We need a vision for our future that is ambitious and not to run away and bury our heads in the sand, and we can best do this by staying in the EU. We should not be side-tracked by short-term political opportunism. Being in the EU gives us access to ideas, people and to investment in science. That, combined with mobility (of EU scientists), gives us increased collaboration, increased transfer of people, ideas and science - all of which history has shown us drives science."

Prof Nurse added that as part of the EU, the UK has influence in directing research among nations that collectively have become a "powerhouse" of science on a par with the US and China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682

Redflag. The opinions of people who ring in to ‘Any Answers’ are no more or less valid than the views of anyone in the pub on a Saturday night. They are just that – opinions, not evidence. Neither do remarks made by John Pienaar constitute facts just because he happens to say them on the radio.

Yesterday you said that, according to Pienaar, “the EU has not had its books audited for over 11 years”. Today you tell us that Pienaar said “the books had not been signed off for 11 years”. Well, whichever it was that Pienaar said – not audited or not signed off – he was wrong, and so are you to keep repeating the lie. Let’s see which part of this you don’t understand: The European Court of Auditors has signed off the 2014 accounts as reliable, as it has for every set of figures since 2007.

Source:-
https://fullfact.org/economy/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

I’ve already answered your point about the missing £130 million, even though you haven’t said whether that was over one year or many. If it was the amount unaccounted for in just one year, it would still only constitute 0.11% of the total EU budget, and that would probably be considered quite small in most large organisations. As 80% of the EU budget is spent in the member countries, the discrepancy is more likely to have been caused by national governments rather than in Brussels.

Redflag wrote:a few years ago Southern Ireland had a referendum and came back with the answer NO the EU refused to accept it so the people of Southern Ireland where sent back until they came up with the answer that PLEASED the EU which was YES

Not just Ireland but also I think Portugal was sent back to do the job again - this time properly!

Of one thing I am sure - by June 23rd we shall all be heartily sick of hearing about the bloody referendum.

How can there be any kind of discussion until the "OUT" campaigners explain all the consequences that would inevitably flow from a referendum result to get out of the EU?

e.g. What will happen to the international value of the Pound Sterling? How many Companies now based in Britain will leave?
How long will it take European Importers to locate alternative suppliers - and British exporters to create alternative markets?
Will British residents still get a pension and medical attention abroad? Will there once again have to be a military frontier where Ulster becomes Eire? What will be the extra cost of servicing civil and military aircraft that were bought from foreign manufacturers?

Well, Mr. Gove?