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.

Cost of living in Italy is about the same as the UK but the people in the UK have more 'local purchasing power' or more money in their pocket, for want of a better phrase, meaning we're actually better off on average. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

The differences between living In Italy and Britain really can't be compared, Britain does have a better standard of living, but the Italians certainly enjoy a better quality of life. The way each countries people live is so different that no matter what the figures quoted tell us, in reality mean very little.
An instance. When an Italian goes out shopping it is usually done by the Matriarch, in my Family that was my Nonna (prior to my losing her in 1990, she was 5 months short of making her 100th Birthday) she purchased absolutely everything fresh on a daily basis and only bought what she intended to cook that day. If she needed 8 slices of Mortadella that is all she got, no food ever went into the bin, so no wastage which means no money wasted. In the main Italian Families are still very much the same as they where in years gone by, unfortunately that for many is changing in that Families are now being broken up for economic reasons and are leaving the countryside and villages to seek work in the cities and more and more women are having to work. Property prices both to buy and to rent are lower than Britain's and the Italians are more likely to be satisfied with a rented apartment, as they don't have the attitude that the brits have about having to own a house. Petrol is and always has been dearer than in the UK, but again the Italians are better at choosing cars they can afford and don't have the Keeping up with the Joneses mentality. Although Italians have on paper anyway less disposable income than do the Brits, they most certainly manage better with what they have, and no Italian children go hungry. 
The figures certainly show one thing, but the fact that Italians on the whole live longer than the Brits must tell us something.

"Quality of Life". You can't measure it, but you know when you've got it.

For some reason, the Tory-led coalition seem to think we don't deserve it.

It’s interesting to see that after years of ‘The Daily Mail’ brainwashing its easily influenced readers with anti-EU anecdotes, those who support our continued membership are at last speaking up. We’ve had the head of Nissan warn that the car maker would "reconsider" its future in the UK if it left the European Union, and we’ve had the CBI director general claim that EU membership is “overwhelmingly” best for business and estimate that it’s worth 4-5% of UK annual output. Furthermore, Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander was told on a visit to India that EU membership was one of the reasons why the UK was an attractive place to invest.
 
Shadow minister for Europe Gareth Thomas said: "The CBI's report clearly shows that the business community doesn't want to see Britain sleepwalk out of the EU. Europe brings each UK household £3,000 a year. Cameron is willing to put this at risk because his approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest, not Britain's national interest. Labour believes that a commitment to staying at the heart of the EU, along with a clear programme of deliverable reforms, is the best course for Britain. Labour has long called for reforms to make Europe work better, including a new EU Commissioner for Growth to help focus Europe on delivering the jobs and prosperity that our country needs."
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24773179

"Cameron is willing to put this at risk because his approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest."

In one sentence, the explanation as to why this country currently feels such an uncomfortable place to live in. Tories First!

oftenwrong wrote:"Cameron is willing to put this at risk because his approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest."

In one sentence, the explanation as to why this country currently feels such an uncomfortable place to live in.  Tories First!

No - that's like saying butlers matter. Bankers first!

.... and they don't even bother to be subtle about it, Penderyn.

oftenwrong wrote:.... and they don't even bother to be subtle about it, Penderyn.

All too true!

A prospective UKIP MEP was on the BBC’s ‘Any Questions’ with Jonathan Dimbleby this week. Almost the first thing he said was that 75% of our laws come from the European Union. It’s a stock-in-trade UKIP line, but it just isn’t true; it doesn’t apply to the percentage of laws in individual member states that stem from the EU, but the percentage of laws that stem from the EU that the European Parliament has a say in.

Some time ago, Tory MEP Dan Hannan claimed that 84% of our laws are made in Brussels, while Cameron once suggested that “almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU”. Like typical Tories, both were making it up as they go along.

When Caroline Flint was Labour’s Europe minister, she quoted a House of Commons Library report which suggested that just 9.1% of our laws stem from the EU. That figure is too low, as it only covers statutory instruments, not all laws.

What is the true figure? Nobody knows. So any claims that state hard and fast percentages should be treated with equal suspicion. However, in October 2010 the House of Commons Library published a much more comprehensive study of the percentage of UK laws that originate from the EU, concluding that the true figure is around 15%. That’s supported by a German study, published in June 2012, which suggests that 15.5% of UK laws are made by the EU.

This link will take you to a comprehensive analysis of the claims and counter claims made about this subject:-
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/

The EU in or out? argument has much in common with the stupid old saw which runs: "Women - can't live with them, and can't live without 'em!"

On Europe, Cameron chose party over country – a potential tragedy for Britain

Extracts from an article by Martin Kettle:-

"A year ago David Cameron made what was then and is still now the most important speech of his premiership. In January 2013 he went to Bloomberg's offices in the City of London and spoke about Britain's relationship with Europe. The speech said lots of practical things about the European Union, including the prime minister's 'heart and soul' wish for the UK to remain in a reformed Europe. But its key political line was the commitment, if re-elected, to hold a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017.

A year ago, Cameron could have put himself at the head of a broad-based pro-reform, pro-European campaign in British politics. It could have had widespread support across all parties and could have made a difference in Europe and in Britain alike. Not surprisingly, polls show that a majority of voters would support such an approach if it was on offer. They want a Europe that works, in which Britain has influence.

Instead, Cameron put his role as Tory leader above his role as prime minister. He preferred to bend the knee to the impossibilist demands of the anti-European right and the Tory media. He has continued to do so ever since and, if UKIP scores heavily in May, will surely do so again, and fail to achieve the success he seeks. It is a disaster for the Tory Party. But it is a tragedy for the country."

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/15/europe-cameron-tragedy-for-britain

Presumably Cameron is not entirely disinterested in his own personal career. Looking after the interests of the Tory Party is an essential part of any plans he might have for re-election as its Leader.

This link (from 1995 - nothing changes) demonstrates how enthusiasm for Europe has always been muted among the Conservatives.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18075645.html

Frances Fox wrote:The Prime Minister's speech was expected, but if the Conservatives regain power and we actually do get a referendum he will get the help of many immigrants that come into this country especially in 2014 with Romanians and Bulganians being allowed into Britain to vote YES to keep in the EU. The three main parties have broken promises and they all agreed to Britain being taken by stealth from the EEC, EC to the EU without our knowledge.  I am not against Immigration provided it is controlled as it used to be not as it is now with "immigration invasion" giving benefits to people whilst the British have to go without. What country is available to our youngsters to emigrate for jobs?

Published: 19th October 2012

THOUSANDS of young jobless Europeans are to get travel expenses and moving costs to come to work in Britain.
The European Commission will pay £250 to help hopefuls get to an interview — and £830 to cover relocation costs if they are offered a job.
Brussels claims thousands will find work under the taxpayer-funded initiative.
Critics fear it will see youngsters from countries with high unemployment flock to the UK, where ONE MILLION young Brits are jobless. The scheme, for those aged from 18 to 30, aims to match jobseekers with suitable jobs.

Frances Fox  

I wouldnt give the British people a referendum on Europe because they would be making uninformed decisions based on the negative garbage printed in the Mail, and the Sun.  
 
Ivanhoe

You don't have to be a Tory to be worried about the EU. If you cast your mind back to the 1983 Labour manifesto it included a declaration that it wanted to pull out
e
Plenty of people on the left - even a few in the Labour party - still distrust the EU: and see it as a capitalist club.

So the argument's NOT a left/right one nor is it on a single issue.

One of the most worry aspects about the EU is its growing authoritarianism. That of course is a political disease that both left and right wingers suffer from and it's either naive or dishonest of people who claim to be on the side of the workers and ordinary people to treat their opinions with so much contempt.

There are far too many fascists on the left just as there are on the right.

Ivanhoe wrote:I wouldnt give the British people a referendum on Europe because they would be making uninformed decisions based on the negative garbage printed in the Mail, and the Sun.  
 
Ivanhoe

 
What a patronising, elitist, upper class attitude to the working classes. You  sound like something out of Downton Abbey and like you expect us thicko proles to touch our forelocks to you superior class beings!
 
What a load of reactionary, right-wing rubbish!

Again.  I would not give the British people are referendum on Europe because largely the British people are not told the positives of Europe, and therefore they would be making uninformed decisions, and the UKIP rely on this political ignorance to get them votes in 2015.  Thatcher was my educator into politics, her pompas arrogance motivated me to become an activist in the Labour party before Tony Blair took Labour to the right.
 
I joined "traditional" Labour because they are the nearest political party to my own beliefs.  
 
I happen to believe in workers rights.  The EU believe in workers rights.  Neither the Tories, nor the UKIP believe in workers rights.   I also believe that Britain remains living in the dark ages in attitudes and subserviance, and yes, i'm a great fan of Downton Abbey.  It is very nice hearing the English language spoken well.  No wat oi mean mate ?
 
Ivanhoe

biglin. Ivanhoe was talking about “the British people” generally, not “the working classes”. Not many people do know the intricate details about what goes on in the EU, and most only get filtered propaganda from tabloid papers with a political axe to grind. I thought that the point of having politicians was to sort out such issues on our behalf. Having a referendum on something about which most of us are ignorant may not be the wisest choice, and it might well settle nothing if the result turned out to be close or the turnout low.
 
Yes, some people on the left see the EU as a businessmen’s club, others see it as a protector of workers’ rights; it might well be both. I was in Germany during their general election last September and I spoke to a number of people from different parties (SPD, Linke, Green, Pirate); nobody was talking about leaving the EU. I’m not aware of any significant anti-EU campaigns in other countries either. Personally, I don’t want money wasted on a referendum, which would just be a distraction from what most voters consider to be more important issues, just to appease UKIP and right-wing Tories and to save Cameron’s hide. Ivanhoe is quite correct in saying that both UKIP and many Tories want to further erode workers’ rights, and that’s probably a big part of their agenda for wanting to leave the EU.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t837-is-it-undemocratic-to-be-opposed-to-an-eu-referendum

Ivan wrote:Ivanhoe is quite correct in saying that both UKIP and many Tories want to further erode workers’ rights, and that’s probably a big part of their agenda for wanting to leave the EU.

Ivan, workers rights are sacrosanct to the EU populace.  But I cant ever see us going fully into the EU because I cant see the British people ditching the pound and adopting the Euro.  So this leaves Britain on the outside of Europe looking in, with no decision making powers whatsoever.  Even under a Labour Government I cant see Milliband ditching the pound for the Euro.
 
Ivanhoe

REM: only one "l" each for David and Edward   

Why does Nigel Farage want us to follow the lead of countries that are smaller than Bristol?
 
Extracts from an article by Mehdi Hasan:-
 
"Norway is often cited by the anti-EU brigade as a possible model for Britain. Despite being outside the EU, Norway has had to implement 75% of its laws. It’s not a cheap deal, either. Norway’s total financial contribution to the EU each year is about €340m – which, per capita, works out to be slightly higher than the UK’s.

Eurosceptics harp on about the need for democracy. But the Swiss, like the Norwegians and the Icelanders, choose to eat food from a table at which they have no seat. They have no spots on the European Commission, no members of the European Parliament, no invitations to the Council of Ministers, no judges on the European Court of Justice. Yet they submit to EU legislation over which they have no votes, no vetoes and very little influence.

The simple truth is that whether the UK is inside the EU or out, we’ll have to follow EU rules and regulations. Eurosceptics say they like the EU’s single market but don’t like the EU’s regulations. What they seem unable – or unwilling – to understand is that there is no single market without regulations; it is the regulations that make it a single market, rather than a continent-wide free-for-all.

And it is the single market that gives EU member states power, clout and influence on a global scale. Do we want to negotiate with the Chinas and Russias of the world as part of a 28-member bloc of 500 million people? Or quit the biggest single market in human history in order to emulate Iceland, a country with a population smaller than Bristol?"
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/why-does-nigel-farage-want-us-follow-lead-countries-are-smaller-bristol

The Labour Party is said to be in favour of Britain remaining in the EU. I think I might vote for them at the next Election.

me too

The template is the United States of America. States largely make their own local Law, under the Supreme Court and subject to Washington for Defense and International affairs.

There is only one currency, the US$, and in Europe there can never be unity until every otherwise autonomous member adopts the Euro under the overall control of the ECB.

It's not often that you'll hear me say "I agree with Nick".......   

Where would you rather live – Great Britain or little England?
 
Extracts from an article by Nick Clegg:-
 
"Of all Nigel Farage's far-fetched claims – and there are many – the most outlandish is the idea that UKIP's call for an exit is the insurgents' battle cry. European withdrawal is presented as a great revolutionary promise, held in stark contrast to the status quo upheld by a homogeneous political elite.

What poppycock. For a start, Farage is every bit the professional politician he enthusiastically reviles. More important, there is nothing remotely new about his party's ambitions. UKIP is simply the fresh face of a long-standing Eurosceptic establishment, supported by many in the Tory party and significant parts of the press.

The sceptics' free run over this debate must now be challenged. Every gain they make will propel Britain closer to the door. We risk finding ourselves drifting further and further away from our biggest export market, jeopardising our still fragile economic recovery and threatening millions of jobs. When the world's economic powerhouses are reaching beyond their own borders and working more closely with their neighbours, we will be turning away from ours.

If we stumble out of the EU, our police will be denied the cross-border co-operation they enjoy at present. At every international summit and on each of the great dilemmas thrown up by globalisation, climate change, trade, global finance, terrorism and organised crime, Britain will be increasingly isolated, its influence diminished in the world."
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/21/great-britain-little-england-europe-eu-lib-dem-win

trying very hard to establish a respectable voice, isn't he? I believe in the current stance about as much as I believe the stuff about standing up against increased tuition charges

Any utterances by Clegg are about as believable as Eric Pickles' Weightwatchers Membership Card...

Those of us who used to post on the old MSN UK politics board will recall how we would regularly be treated to a lecture on the benefits of the EU by either Peter Mandelson or his colleague Dr Appleton. Their contributions were invariably long and often boring, and I doubt if many people bothered to read all of them in full (I certainly didn’t).
 
Now we have something better! The Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy has produced this informative little booklet on the overwhelming case for Britain remaining in the EU:-
 
The Choice: Great Britain or Little Britain’
 
Here are a few of the facts it contains:-
 
- Over 50% of companies investing in the UK cite membership of the single market as a core reason for doing so.

- Foreign companies often consider locating in the UK as their passport to the EU market of 500 million consumers. 40% of finance firms cited access to European markets as a core reason for choosing London.

- The British car industry could suffer an estimated 4% hike in tariffs on sales to the European single market if we were outside the EU. Japanese car makers based in Britain would find sales to the EU more expensive and may consider moving production to continental Europe, to be inside the single market.

- In January 2013, it was revealed £36.5 billion is owed to UK small businesses - that’s about £30,000 each. The European Payment Order assists businesses and consumers in recovering debts owed to them across the EU. The law helps businesses avoid costly court cases and legal fees. Businesses who receive late payments are automatically entitled to compensation for recovery costs.

- The average UK consumer saves around £480 per year as a result of competition in the EU single market driving down the price of goods and services.

- The EU is investing £23 million in the UK in order to establish a world leading scientific research and commercial centre for graphene (pure carbon in the form of a very thin, nearly transparent sheet) in Manchester.
 
To read the booklet, or maybe to print it out and wave it in the face of any UKIP headbanger who knocks on your door, you can download it here:-
http://www.arlenemccarthy.labour.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Arlene-McCarthy-booklet-21.11.13-v3-Jan-2014.pdf

The British public are a gullible bunch, in my estimation, and are prone to fits of pique which render them liable to cut off their nose to spite their collective face.

Irritation at relatively small matters can persuade Joe and Josephine Public to support causes  such as (eg) EU withdrawal simply on account of a fanciful Daily Mail article on some seemingly-bureaucratic health and safety issue upon which 'Brussels' may have expressed a casual view .

 Similarly, if The Sun should, perchance, assert that there is reason to believe that we shall see 0.0001% growth and this signals a sure upturn in the nation's fortunes in 2025, said J.Public and his spouse will gleefully parrot the cry and rush out to laud Cameron and Osborne's supposed brilliance.

We have to become more mature in our political reactions at critical times if we are to avoid acting detrimentally to Britain's interests. Some tabloid-inspired love-in with the likes of Farage because of some temporary annoyance at the  antics of a few wayward- but unrepresentative-   immigrants, or the passing inconvenience of an unimportant European Directive is not the sign of a thinking democracy.

 But will Britain change its ways? Of course it won't...

As long as UKIP continue to bang the drum of "Immigrants" they will have a ready audience among both British workers fearful for their jobs and the unemployed fearful of staying that way.

Competing political parties need to come up with a valid and credible riposte.

The following is posted with the permission of the author, Rebecca Taylor MEP, and is therefore not subject to our usual copyright restrictions:-
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 1: no jobs are linked to EU membership so none would be lost if we left
 
A study published a few weeks ago ( http://www.cebr.com/reports/british-jobs-and-the-single-market/ ) shows that over 4 million jobs are linked to Britain’s membership of the EU, which given that 50% of our exports go to other EU countries, isn’t entirely surprising.
 
This doesn’t mean that if we leave the EU, all those jobs disappear overnight, but it means those jobs are directly linked to our ability to trade (buy and sell) with other EU countries as part of the world’s biggest single market.
 
In particular, the UK is very good at attracting international companies to set up here as a springboard to the EU single market, for example the Japanese car companies Nissan, Honda and Toyota.
 
These companies may not go as far as leaving the UK in the event of the country exiting the EU (although we cannot be sure of that), but uncertainty about future EU market access would at the very least push them to slim down their UK operations to serve only the UK market rather than producing for export across the EU.
 
I want the UK to remain an attractive destination for foreign investment of the kind that has just seen Siemens announce plans to create over 1,000 jobs in Hull in the renewable energy field.
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 2: we can leave the EU and retain the same trading relationship because “we buy more from Europe than they buy from us”
 
This is where it’s easy to expose a gaping hole in Eurosceptic rhetoric. While the UK buys more goods from the rest of the EU than we sell, the opposite is true of services, which represent 80% (!) of the British economy. The UK exports far more services to the rest of Europe than they sell to us.
 
This is why our financial services sector (among others) is very worried about a potential EU exit as they fear the massive loss of business that would result from being locked out of the single market in financial services ( http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/uk-britain-europe-idUKKBN0DE0CD20140428 ).
 
UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories are doing their best to hide this rather vital fact by repeating the “they sell more to us” line without explaining that they only mean goods and not services. On the Sunday Politics show, UKIP candidate Patrick O’Flynn was made to look rather foolish when BBC journalist Andrew Neil had to spell out the facts of British trade in services to the rest of the EU to him; O’Flynn gave no answer. I have since tweeted him several times about this, but he doesn’t respond; one suspects either because he cannot or because a truthful answer reveals the weakness of his party’s arguments on trade.
 
China also sells more (goods) to the UK than we do to China, but I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to claim this would give the UK the upper hand in trade negotiations with China. However, Eurosceptics would have you believe the UK (1 country, market of 60 million) would be able to hold the rest of the EU (27 countries, market of over 440m) to ransom. Pretty had to believe isn’t it? Well unless you are living in the past and think the British empire still exists….
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 3: we can have a free trade deal with the EU
 
It is possible to trade with the EU without being a member country through a free trade deal. The most recent deal that came into force was the EU–Canada trade agreement, which removed a number of tariff and non-tariff barriers, for example in the food sector, which was good news for the British food industry.
 
However, what UKIP/Eurosceptic Tories do not want people to know is this: no EU free trade deal ever negotiated gives full access to the EU single market. Nigel Farage mentioned Mexico’s trade deal with the EU in the Nick versus Nigel debate; a trade deal which excludes specific sectors and products, such as dairy, grains and sugar, but of course he didn’t mention all these exclusions, wonder why? The EU-US trade deal (TTIP), which is likely to be the most significant trade deal ever negotiated, will not come close to allowing American companies full access to the single market. Even the Swiss with their 120 (!) bilateral agreements with the EU do not have access to the single market in services.
 
So which sectors of the economy do UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories want to let down by locking them out of the world’s biggest market? Does they think the British people are foolish enough to believe you can have your cake and eat it? I credit the British public with far more common sense than that!
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 4: we can join the EEA; trading with the EU, but free from Brussels rules 
 
Some UKIP supporters and Eurosceptic Tories claim that we can join the EEA (European Economic Area), which are countries that are part of the single market, but outside the EU like Norway, thus allowing us to trade with the EU as freely as we do now, but with no “interference” from Brussels. Sounds too good to be true doesn’t it?
 
The UK may be able to join the EEA, but what would the implications be? As an EEA member, the UK would have to:
 
•  contribute to the EU budget (the “small contribution” Nigel Farage says Norway pays is actually over 80% of the British contribution per head of the population), but have no say in how it was spent;
 
•  implement EU laws that would be decided without British MEPs and British government ministers at the table in Brussels shaping those laws.
 
Or in other words the EEA option means “out of Europe, but run by the EU”. As Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament and former Belgian PM once said “You’re either at the table in Brussels or you’re on the menu”. I know where I would prefer the UK to be.
 
Even the Norwegian Foreign Minister himself has warned the UK against leaving the EU, saying his country had to put up with “regulation without representation”.
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 5: we can be like the Swiss
 
The other option for the UK (advocated by Tory Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan, who is at least honest about the impossibility of a mythical have-your-cake-and-eat-it free trade deal promoted by UKIP), is the Swiss option of negotiating sector by sector/policy area by policy area co-operation with the EU.
 
This has so far resulted in Switzerland signing some 120 (!) bilateral agreements with the EU. Each time there are significant changes in relevant EU policy areas, Switzerland needs to update its bilateral accords with the EU or initiate new ones. Despite hundreds of agreements with the EU, Swiss companies are not free to buy and sell services in the single market; imagine what impact that would have on the UK which has a trade surplus in services with the rest of the EU. I would rather not thanks!
 
To monitor EU developments, the Swiss government and Swiss business and civil society representatives are present in Brussels following virtually everything the EU does in order to adapt themselves to it. The Swiss lobby the EU institutions when decisions are being made that will affect Switzerland, but without the benefit of having Swiss MEPs and Swiss government ministers to fight their corner, unlike the UK whose MEPs and ministers are on the ground doing just that. Well, except UKIP MEPs who don’t bother with the hard graft of standing up for British interests day in, day out.
 
I was amazed to find Swiss government representatives attending a meeting in the European Parliament on alcohol policy. I was informed by one of them that “any changes in EU alcohol policy will affect us, so we need to monitor the situation”. This is a policy area where the EU has very little legislative power!
 
This sounds like the worst of both worlds to me; having to follow what the EU does and change your own policies accordingly without benefitting from full access to the single market.
 
Eurosceptic trade myth no 6: EU membership hampers the UK in global trade 
 
The argument goes something like this: the UK is “not free to trade with the rest of the world” due to being part of the EU. This argument seems to assume firstly that EU and global trade are mutually exclusive; ie you cannot do both, which is somewhat economically illiterate. Selling to customer A does not prevent a business from selling to customer B too.
 
Whenever I ask Eurosceptics why German companies manage to sell far more to emerging markets like Brazil than British companies apparently unhindered by the same EU membership that is “holding back” the UK, I don’t get any coherent answers.
 
UKIP talk about trading more with the Commonwealth and even go as far as claiming that joining the EU destroyed trade with Commonwealth countries. The truth is that trade with Commonwealth countries had been declining for many years before the UK joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973.
 
Commonwealth countries set free from British colonial rule naturally started to trade more with their neighbours than the more geographically distant UK. It is no surprise that Australia’s biggest trading partners today are China and Japan ( http://dfat.gov.au/publications/tgs/index.html ). I do not know how anyone could seriously suggest that Britain leaving the EU would reverse this 50-year-old trend.
 
In addition, the vast majority of Commonwealth countries have trade deals with the EU and Commonwealth governments, such as Australia and Canada, say they want the UK to remain part of the EU. UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories are so backward looking, they cannot see that our relationship with the Commonwealth has changed, and we cannot go back to being an imperial power on whose empire the sun never sets.
 
Another false claim is that the trade deals the EU makes with the rest of the world with its huge negotiating strength as the world’s biggest trade bloc somehow disadvantage the UK. Britain’s leading exporters would tell you a very different story – UK exports to South Korea have increased substantially since the EU-SK trade deal, for example.
 
In addition, the UK is very good at getting British trade priorities reflected in EU trade policy, for example, one of the products targeted in the EU–India trade negotiations is whisky! Roberto Azevêdo, Director General of the World Trade Organisation stated that Britain risks losing influence in trade negotiations if it left the EU ( www.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4773835 ) and you would expect he knows a bit about global trade.
 
Even the winner of the 'Brexit' essay competition, much fêted by Eurosceptics, says that outside the EU, the UK would be able to negotiate global trade deals, but this would not be from a position of strength. Or look at it this way; the USA is currently negotiating a free trade deal with the EU which will require both parties to adapt to each other’s trade rules, while the US – Chile free trade deal requires Chile to adapt to US trade rules, but not the other way round.
 
And finally… 
 
Another argument that UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories put forward is that the UK should leave the EU because the EU’s share of world trade is declining, so it’s an outdated concept. It is true that as large emerging markets like Brazil, India and China grow, the share of world trade of the EU (and other industrialised countries like Japan) is shrinking.
 
However, there are two huge caveats here. Firstly, this is not a quick process of change, which means that the UK still currently sells more to Belgium (!) than Brazil, so it would not be sensible to turn our back on our EU trade partners right now.
 
Secondly, and even more importantly, if current trends continue, then some estimate that 30 years time, there may be no European country in the G8,  but the EU will remain the world’s largest single market. So in fact, the Eurosceptic argument against the EU is actually one of the biggest arguments in favour!
 
In the future, European countries can retain a strong voice in global trade by acting togetheras part of the EU. I do not want the UK to be on the sidelines without a voice at that moment, but a leading member of the EU.
 
http://www.rebeccataylor.eu/

QUOTE: "UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories are doing their best to hide this [rather vital fact] by repeating the “they sell more to us” line without explaining that they only mean goods and not services.

Invisible earnings from the City of London swim in and out of the public and political consciousness, according to taste.

Re: Is it possible to have a rational and enlightened discussion about the European Union? in short Ivan the aswer is... no.... i am sad to say..in fact i have tried to hold a rational debate about Europe before.. all you end up with is peoples personal views about immigration and lots of Definition of xenophobia or bring back powers to the UK.. However, most people cannot even name what real powers we have lost without re-turning to immigration.. as when you point out that the best Trade union working laws in the last 20 years have come from Europe and not the UK governning the worlplace most have no idea what you are in fact talking about.. As who can foget truck drivers trying to drive for anything up to 17 hours a day and killing hundreds of other people while doing it? or the 48 hours working rule that come about from Europe.. still you try to explain this lot to them my good friend. as they are still living in the 1960s most of them or are too young to remember the bad old days..

the only people who will really enjoy us goming out of the EU will be greedy big business who really do hate workers rights in the UK.. in fact i saw the guy from the CBI licking his lips at us coming out.. as when he talks about red tape he was really talking about weaking employment laws once more.. all dressed up as bring powers back to the UK.. well i know what he is after if most people are willing to fall for this old bull Ivan.. i know you can see right though this too.. some with bobby

Ivanhoe wrote:bluey, Blair didnt taken the UK in general into the EU.  The only way the UK is connected to Europe is via our £50 million a day funding into the EU, Germany as leading players in Europe, which we Britain arent, pay much more.

The UK doesnt have strong employment laws, because Blair woulfd not adopt the EU Social Charter.

The EU have higher income tax rates, the UK has low income tax rates, what's the top income tax rate on the Channel Islands ?

 
Ivanhoe The UK doesnt have strong employment laws, because big business has spent billions of pounds making sure we do not have them.. just stand in the house of commons hallway and just watch big business come in each day to lobby against this employment law or that employment law.. i saw it will my own eyes even before Blair won his first election in 1997..

QUOTE: "The UK doesnt have strong employment laws...."

Paid holidays, sick pay, unemployment benefit, pensions, employment tribunals, all introduced by Labour governments, may all be susceptible to improvement, but are vastly better than what exists in various European countries.

Some people don't know when they're well off. All we have to do is defeat the Tories in a year's time.

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "The UK doesnt have strong employment laws...."

Paid holidays, sick pay, unemployment benefit, pensions, employment tribunals, all introduced by Labour governments, may all be susceptible to improvement, but are vastly better than what exists in various European countries.

Some people don't know when they're well off.  All we have to do is defeat the Tories in a year's time.

All in the past my good friend.. our Employment laws to-day are as weak as you can get them..

20 December 2012
By Sarah Glenister, IER staff

The failure of the UK to ratify an international protocol has left British workers and trade unions in a position potentially more vulnerable than those in long-suffering Greece.

If employment protection in Britain were raised to French levels, firms would rush to get rid of unsatisfactory workers before the legislation came into effect. New research by Björn Brügemann of Yale University suggests that this is why there is so little pressure on government from British workers demanding French-style job security.

Why Employment Protection Is Weak In Britain And Strong In France: It’s Tougher To Get Than To Defend Once In Place

Published Date: June 2007

While protection against dismissal is very limited in Britain, most workers in continental Europe enjoy strong employment protection. Moreover, French workers fiercely defended these rights in early 2006, defeating then Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin’s attempt to introduce more flexible employment contracts for younger workers.

This study, published in the June 2007 issue of the Economic Journal, offers the following explanation why there is no similarly determined movement among British workers demanding French-style job security: employment protection is much harder to introduce than it is to defend such regulations once they are already in place.

Central to Brügemann’s argument is the fact that passing regulations such as employment protection inevitably requires a slow and protracted legislative process. During this process, firms have ample time and also the incentive to shed precisely those workers who would benefit most from more stringent protection: workers whose situation is already precarious because they generate little profits for their employer.
In France, these workers have every reason to oppose deregulation. In comparison, their peers in Britain have less reason to push for the introduction of employment protection, because they must fear that firms will take advantage of their last chance to sack them before the new law takes effect.
Brügemann finds that the experience of recent small-scale increases in employment protection supports this argument. Most recently, in 1999, the Labour government reduced the period of employment needed to qualify for unfair dismissal protection from 24 to twelve months.
News reports surrounding this event indicate that employment lawyers advised firms to dismiss unsatisfactory employees, and that firms did indeed rush layoffs to beat the law. This occurred despite the government’s ability to implement this change relatively quickly, without a new Act and only needing approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Increasing protection to French levels would likely trigger a much more severe response of firms. Not only would this be a much larger change, it would also require a more involved legislative process and thereby give firms more time to react.
Brügemann’s analysis shows that in principle, this argument alone could explain why strict job protection survives in France while being a non-starter in Britain. In other words, at first sight it may appear that the French are more averse to job mobility than the British. It may well be, however, that workers in Britain like job security just as much, but realise that an attempt to get it would be self-defeating.
ENDS

Notes for editors: ‘Employment Protection: Tough to Get or Tough to Scrap?’ by Björn Brügemann is published in the June 2007 issue of the Economic Journal.
Björn Brügemann is assistant professor of economics at Yale University.

Some people don't know when they're well off.... really is that a fact? i do not think so my friend

Cable wasn’t wrong when he said ‘Britain already has very flexible labour markets‘ – the UK has the joint 2nd-weakest protections for permanent employees before the proposed changes.

David Cameron to Parliament last week shows). Our overall protections, including legal requirements for mass dismissals and protection for temporary workers, are also the 3rd-weakest - again, before any of the new changes.

The graph also shows – to the shame of the UK’s so-called leaders – that the level of protection for UK workers is only about 1/3 as good as that provided by such notoriously-exploitative nations such as China, India, Indonesia.

Given that those countries have far greater levels of economic growth than the UK, we could almost stop there. But some might argue that those countries were starting from a very low base, and so could be expected to have higher growth in the early stages of their economic development. So let’s take a look at another graph, one that gives a broader picture:

sorry i cannot show you the graph ..

Tory fatcat Adrian Beecroft's ­businesses stand to make even more money if his plans to slash employment red tape become law.

Britain already has the weakest workplace protections in Europe but that's not enough for the private equity multi-millionaire.

A paper he has produced for Prime Minister David Cameron's office suggests it should become law that bosses should be able to sack staff at will.

The Beecroft Report also proposes that it should be made easier to sack large groups of workers and cap payouts from ­employment tribunals.

A Mirror investigation today reveals current laws could not stop a consortium led by Beecroft's private equity firm Apax partners from axing 8,000 jobs and slashing wages after buying the Somerfield chain in 2005.

The supermarket was sold three years later, netting a £465million profit for investors. Somerfield faced scores of employment tribunals after the takeover.

Last night, the general secretary of shopworkers union Usdaw, John Hannett, claimed the company had launched a "wholesale attack on workers" under Beecroft's consortium and slammed his new plans.

He added: "Usdaw very much welcomed the Co-op Group's takeover of the chain from Apax in 2008."

Beecroft, 65, is worth about £100million and lives in a £6.5million house in ­Hampstead, North London.

He was educated at Oxford and has donated £573,000 to the Conservative Party, enough to be allowed to have dinner with the Prime Minister. He loves to race his vintage Aston Martin DBR1, worth around £4million, at events like the Goodwood Revival.

Beecroft retired from Apax in 2008 but remains listed at Companies House as a partner of the firm.

He went on to launch venture capital firm Dawn Capital, which has investments including payday loan firm Wonga.

The company, which gives short-term loans to struggling families at eye-watering interest rates of up to 4,200% APR, has grown to a value of £384million in just five years.

Mr Cameron's policy guru Steve Hilton asked Beecroft to write a report on the UK's employment law last year.

The result was so controversial that it was shelved for six months and eight pages of the most radical plans were removed - including ditching parental flexible working and even a proposal to allow small firms to hire children.

Business secretary Vince Cable said parts of the report were "bonkers" and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said they would create "industrial scale insecurity amongst millions of workers".

But Beecroft has defended the plan and claimed Government insiders told him "David Cameron wanted to do the whole thing".

He said dumping his report would cost the UK economy 5% in growth.

Undoubtedly, his proposals would make life easier for private equity firms like Apax.

They have been compared to vultures, buying up companies then cutting costs, sacking staff, slashing wages - all in order to sell for a fast buck.

Beecroft joined Apax in 1984 and according to his CV he assumed responsibility for the London office and approval of all investments.

Apax teamed up with Barclays Capital and R20, controversial property tycoon Robert Tchenguiz's investment firm, to buy Somerfield for £1.1billion after ­spotting "the kernel of a good business".

Apax focused on local convenience stores and within weeks the bulk of Somerfield's loss-making Kwik Save subsidiary was sold.

Somerfield then announced plans to cut pay for new starters to the minimum wage of £5.35 and to slash premium pay for working Sundays and bank holidays.

Under new contracts, which were rejected in a ballot by staff, sick pay entitlement was also cut.

But union sources say management forced through most of the changes, including more redundancies.

One worker said: "In our store about 15 jobs would be condensed into eight.

"All affected would face redundancy but could reapply for the new positions.

"But the workers affected are disinclined to reapply, as in most cases it looks like the same job for less money."

Of 109 employment tribunal cases against Somerfield between 2006 and 2009, 47 were settled through mediation service ACAS.

Another 11 were settled privately, 18 were withdrawn, 12 were struck out and seven were lodged too late and dismissed.

Of the 14 cases where the tribunal came to a judgement - eight were won by staff and six were won by Somerfield.

Linda Inhester was sacked from her job at a Somerfield store in Peckham, South London, for "gross misconduct" after she was accused of stealing £10 from a customer.

She took her case to an ­employment tribunal which found she had been unfairly dismissed.

Another worker at the supermarket had to go to an employment tribunal in 2007 to prove the firm had not paid her £688 in holiday pay and a third won £9,955 in compensation after she was unfairly dismissed following maternity leave.

By 2008, the number of "full time equivalent" employees at Somerfield had fallen from 31,665 to 23,741 and the average wage had slumped by £214 a year to £16,065.

It was sold to rival chain the Co-operative Group in 2008 for £1.6billion - a 42% return for Apax and its investors.

Somerfield's Apax-appointed chief executive Paul Mason and chairman John Lovering stood down in 2009, sharing £5.2million "compensation for loss of office". In all, the board was paid £13million that year.

Tchenguiz was arrested last year as part of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the collapse of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing, which his firms owed £1.8billion.

He was later released without charge but he has been targeted for millions by Kaupthing's administrators.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK ranks second bottom out of 34 industrialised countries in their league table of employment protection, alongside Canada and above the US.

Mr Hannett added: "The report is a recipe for rampant job insecurity that would reduce consumer demand and worsen economic growth prospects.

"We need laws to protect us at work for the same reasons we have them elsewhere in life - to stop the bad, unscrupulous and ruthless who are willing to hurt, cheat and exploit others for their own personal or financial gain."

Beecroft was last night unavailable for comment but an Apax spokesman said: "Apax is proud of the fact that it successfully helped to revive Somerfield.

"The grocery market is cut-throat and Somerfield was struggling to compete with the big four.

oftenwrong wrote:http://www.lra.org.uk/index/employment_legislation.htm

And you point is what oftenwrong?

Employment Law remains on the statute book. Of course the Tories want to get rid of it, which is why they must first withdraw from the European Community. In the meantime, the obvious course is to do anything and everything which will facilitate the election of a Labour Government next May.

Not to cry "wolf" every time some fascist cries for the reintroduction of slavery.