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.

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?

The impact of leaving the EU on the UK’s trade and investment

From a document by John Springford and Simon Tilford

“The UK has very little to gain by quitting the EU and much to lose. Britain’s interest lies in reducing the cost of trade with its largest trade partners – which the EU evidently does.

The EU’s single market employs three tools to boost trade. First, it eliminates tariffs on goods. Second, it establishes the right of companies and people to sell their goods, services or labour, or to invest, in other member states – the so-called ‘four freedoms’. Third, it reduces the cost of potential exporters having to comply with 28 different rule books. The EU creates minimum regulatory standards, and then requires all member states to allow goods that comply with those standards to be sold unhindered. This means that exporters no longer have to produce 28 distinct products to comply with differing national rules.

Outside the EU, the UK would find it very difficult to negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries as comprehensive as those that the EU regularly agrees. The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions: that a medium sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system, dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain’s economy if it were no longer a part of the single market. The UK should base policy on evidence, which largely points to one conclusion: that it should stay in the EU.”

www.cer.org.uk

We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU

From an article by Espen Barth Eide, a former Norwegian foreign minister:-

"As a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), we in Norway do not participate in decision-making in Brussels, but we loyally abide by Brussels’ decisions. We have incorporated approximately 75% of all EU legislative acts into Norwegian legislation – and counting. We have legally secured access to the single market, and we practise the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. Norway is more closely integrated into many aspects of the EU than even some of the EU’s members. Our subscription to freedom of movement and our membership of the Schengen area means that Norway has even higher per capita immigration than Britain.

Those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU and choose the Norwegian way can hence correctly claim that a country can retain access to the single market from outside the EU. What is normally not said, however, is that this also means retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be 'run by Brussels', and it would remain committed to the four freedoms, including free movement. Without full EU membership, however, it would have given up on having a say over EU policies: like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made.

The reality is that every single western European country has chosen to take part in the European integration process in some shape or form."

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

The Norwegian position is interesting. The line of leave campaigners appears to be that the vast majority of EU rules implemented in Norway in order to have access to the common market are not actually EU rules, but international standards that any country would be implementing anyway. They quote figures pulled directly from the IELTS website here in Norway which deal with this, but I am skeptical of how directly comparable those headings are and it needs further research. Feel free to read a discussion on the twittersphere I started last week here. What is clear is that those who are responsible for running Norway would much rather be in the room than standing outside when the rules of the market are being made, but they have twice failed to convince Norwegians to join in referenda. If it's about sovereignty, seeking to trade with the EU from the outside is bad medicine, and potentially leaves a country with less say in its own affairs than it had inside the EU.

Its' easy to forget, in the Daily Mail diatribe of the UK's European subservience, that the UK has been a hugely influential member of the union, influencing policy to its best interest in areas as broad as financial services and occupational health and safety, and that it holds an effective veto in large areas of the EUs mandate. Furthermore, the EU rarely imposes law directly upon its members, what it does do is to set out Directives for members to implement into national law as they see fit - provided the Directive is complied with. It is still the member state legislating, most all of the time - in accordance with their obligations at international, or arguably supranational, law.

Furthermore, there is plenty of case law on this topic. Parliament remains sovereign, it has agreed to abide by the rules of the EU, but reserves the right to leave the EU, and that principle has been enshrined in EU law itself since Lisbon.

Similarly with the judiciary, the European courts provide rulings to the member states' courts on matters specific to EU law - contrary to what might be believed it is still the national courts that determine cases, and there are plenty of examples of cases where national courts have chosen to simply ignore the rulings of the EU court, the German Courts get particularly prickly about anything affecting German Basic Law.

The EU is not perfect, far from it, and desparately needs reform. The single currency has made the Eurozone easier to trade with but at great cost to the Southern European members who desperately need to devalue to increase export competitivity. There is also a complete failure to recognise that German frugality has contributed to this mess too. The treatment of electorates who have chosen a different path to failing ECB/IMF austerity has been appalling. Going back to the beginning of this thread though, you cannot drive reform in an organisation that you're not part of. If that happens to be your biggest trading partner, then in leaving you are restricting your ability to influence their growth, and inter alia your own.

This isn't about sovereignty, it never has been, it's about grandstanding and placating a few oligarchs who happen to own most of the media in the UK. If it was really about sovereignty then I'd be far more concerned about TTIP and ISDS than about the EU.

Ivan wrote: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.

This is really important, and its pretty basic stuff.  Each elected member state nominates their commissioner to the commission, which in turn is approved by the directly elected European parliament.

Redflag wrote: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.

Not so.

The big issue at the heart of this was the proposed removal of commissioners from smaller member states of which Ireland was one. The proposal was dropped, the second referendum was passed, and Ireland ratified Lisbon.

Ivan wrote:
A federal Europe is now much less likely than it was twenty years ago, and it would require a treaty change, which would probably trigger a referendum in every member country. The migration issue demonstrates the need for closer co-operation between countries, but the continuing threat of terrorism means that the re-introduction of border controls is beginning to happen (for example, on the border between Germany and Austria).

and quite frankly is not going to happen following the Franco Danish rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, would require unanimous ratification by the member states, some of whom require referenda constitutionally - France and Denmark being the two obvious ones springing to mind.

Two things:
1 - The UK can not be dragged into a federal Europe so long as it remains a member, and therefore a federal Europe cannot be be created so long as the UK remains a member.
2 - The first principle of UK foreign policy since Waterloo and before has been to prevent any other single power from dominating Europe.

Which makes leaving pretty inconsistent with UK foreign policy objectives since , well, forever.

The remain campaign are really hitting the fear button, please allow me to explain IF we leave the EU and they still expect us to give them a good deal on what they import into the UK, but according to the remain campaign they will charge us heavy tarriffs to anything we import into the EU. Sorry but I am a great believer in "What is Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander" since they import more into the UK than we export to the EU such as the VW cars BMWs & Mercs they should be happy to give the UK a FAIR DEAL both ways.

Redflag wrote:.... since they import more into the UK than we export to the EU such as the VW cars BMWs & Mercs they should be happy to give the UK a FAIR DEAL both ways.

You get a good deal now. Its' called free trade both ways - and if leave are to be believe then you'll still have free trade both ways.  If the UK needs to resort to protectionism to stoke competitiveness, then its troubles run much deeper than its trade arrangements and have much more to do with its failure to have any industrial policy whatsoever - hardly something that you can pin at Brussels's door.

A lot of people seem to be looking at this IN/OUT referendum business through the wrong end of their binoculars:



It's a wholly unnecessary exercise begun by Cameron at a time when UKIP threatened to capture lots of Tory seats in Parliament, but he can't stop the referendum train, even though that danger has passed.

Sometimes, doing nothing is the right answer to a problem - like the one about staying in the EU.  We already know what it is like to be IN, but nobody  can predict the result of getting out.

Redflag wrote:-
The remain campaign are really hitting the fear button

That’s really rich, when the leave campaign is based entirely on fear, prejudice and lies. Fear of foreigners – as if the EU is responsible for the migration currently affecting the continent of Europe. Fear that we’ve lost our sovereignty – a blatant lie, proven by the fact that if we didn’t have sovereignty, our government wouldn’t be able to call an in/out referendum. Add to that lies about how much we contribute to the EU, lies that we could somehow have all the benefits of the EU without contributing to it, lies about the EU accounts not being audited and lies that leaving the EU would somehow save us from the effects of the TTIP, and you have the essence of the pathetic campaign for leaving the largest free trade area the world has ever seen.

they import more into the UK than we export to the EU

That’s another typically misleading remark thrown around by those who want the UK to leave. It’s based on the 2014 estimate that 45% of UK exports go to the EU, while 53% of our imports of goods and services come from it. But 53% of our imports is not the same as 53% of EU exports. Try thinking about that for a minute or two and the penny might drop. When Neil Kinnock was interviewed on Radio 4 recently, his estimate was that the UK accounts for about 9% of goods exported by EU countries.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06091

We don’t trade “with the EU” but with 27 other member countries. Our exports to those countries help to support 4.2 million UK jobs and are worth £211 billion to the economy. Those blinkered or malevolent enough to vote to leave are putting those jobs at risk, creating an uncertain future for 2.2 million Brits who work and/or live in other EU countries, and jeopardising workplace rights that are currently protected from the Tories by the European Court of Justice. Voting to leave the EU is a betrayal of all those people. Call that “hitting the fear button” if it's the best you can do, but I call them substantiated facts, something which we never see in your posts on this subject. The EU if considered as a bloc is by far the UK’s largest trading partner, but you want to put that at risk. For what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/31/eu-exports-jobs_n_5061398.html

Only 8 of the 232 Labour MPs support leaving the EU –  Ronnie Campbell, Frank Field, Roger Godsiff, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Khalid Mahmood, Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer. 213 Labour MPs, including the entire shadow cabinet, recently signed a declaration of support for the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946

Labour Party members are also overwhelmingly in support of the EU; when Europe was debated on the floor of the party conference in September, the result was unequivocal. A resolution was passed unanimously, with not a single delegate from any section of the party speaking against it. Here is a part of that resolution:-

“Conference recognises that our membership of the EU means companies can sell to a market of 500 million people, employees are provided additional rights and protections in the workplace and everyone across the UK has the freedom to travel, live, work, study and retire anywhere in the EU.”

So it’s hardly surprising that the recently relaunched Labour Leave pressure group faces an uphill struggle. As Richard Corbett MEP writes: “Its fundamental problem is that its name is a misnomer. This group no more represents Labour on Europe than the handful of MPs who rebelled over same-sex marriage in 2012 represented Labour on equality”. Corbett goes on to explain that the money behind Labour Leave is John Mills. He’s also the treasurer of anti-EU pressure group Vote Leave, chaired by the founder of the right-wing Taxpayers’ Alliance, and whose other sources of funding are former Tory treasurer and banker Peter Cruddas, and spread-betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler (formerly a major Tory donor, now treasurer of UKIP).

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/labour-leave/

The home page of the Labour Leave website shows another sign of UKIP influence – the deceitful claim that EU membership costs the UK £50 million a day (Farage usually states that it’s £55 million). The real cost is £23 million. If the Brexit mob think they have a valid case, why do they have to keep lying?

https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Further exploration of the Labour Leave website reveals those tired old clichés about “taking back control” and “undemocratic Brussels”. We also learn that the pro-handguns, pro-hunting, former chair of the Countryside Alliance, Kate Hoey, is one of the founders, but they can’t even manage to spell her constituency (Vauxhall) correctly. A co-chair is Khalid Mahmood, who is described as “the MP for Birmingham”, even though he is only the MP for one part of the city (Perry Barr). It’s a tawdry website for a reactionary cause which has no vision of what life after Brexit would be like. These people who are so out of step with Labour policy should seriously consider their position in the party.

http://www.labourleave.org/

Just had a look - it seems very light on evidence for the sweeping claims made, which doesn't inspire confidence.

I'll have a proper look tonight.

TriMonk3y wrote:You get a good deal now. Its' called free trade both ways - and if leave are to be believe then you'll still have free trade both ways.  If the UK needs to resort to protectionism to stoke competitiveness, then its troubles run much deeper than its trade arrangements and have much more to do with its failure to have any industrial policy whatsoever - hardly something that you can pin at Brussels's door.

All I am saying TM is the EU will not cut off there nose to Spite there Face, in other words if they over charge UK companies to trade in the EU the UK companies can apply there RULES when they try to trade within the UK that TM is FAIR TRADING.

IVAN Both sides are using the Fear Factor instead of giving the people of the UK the TRUE FACTS from both aspects which would be the sensible thing to do.

I was told by a friend about TTIP which made me go on-line to check this out & this led to further research about the EU so I have NOT listened to the tripe that comes out of the mouth of Farage or the Tory back benches.

I think this briefing in ‘The Economist’ is the best article that I’ve read so far on the EU referendum:-

The Brexit delusion

The Brexit lobby claims that other EU countries need the British market more than Britain needs theirs. This is a fallacy: Britain accounts for only 10% of EU exports, while the EU takes almost half of Britain’s. Another Brexit argument is that a Britain outside the EU could strike new free-trade deals, but America, China and India have made clear that they would be more interested in a deal with the EU than one with Britain alone. The leave campaign claims that EU red tape hobbles Britain’s firms. Yet studies by the OECD find that Britain’s product and labour markets are among the rich world’s least regulated.

The big selling-point of the Brexit campaign is to stop the free movement of people. It will be hard to do this and keep full access to the EU’s single market; it may also compromise the position of 2m British citizens who live in other EU countries. Immigration curbs would also do economic damage; studies find that immigrants are net contributors to the economy.

If the leave side wins thanks to English votes, the SNP will demand another independence referendum, which it expects to win. Northern Ireland is also troubled by Brexit: Britain’s economic, trade and political relations with Ireland depend heavily on both belonging to the EU. This helped underpin the peace process in Northern Ireland.

The purported benefits from Brexit are uncertain and may prove illusory, while the risks are much greater if voters choose to leave. Similar sentiments led Britons to vote to stay in the European project in 1975, and Scots to remain in the union in 2014.

For the whole article:-
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_brexit_delusion

Redflag wrote:...in other words if they over charge UK companies to trade in the EU the UK companies can apply there RULES when they try to trade within the UK that TM is FAIR TRADING.

RF -  only if balanced - but either way not as fair as free trading in a harmonised common(ish) market, and nowhere near as easy.  Furthermore, if the access charges are the same on both sides then all you have created is a bucket load of unnecessary duty for government to waste on collecting said duty.

The EU has its flaws – but calling it anti-democratic is falsifying reality

From an article by Hugo Dixon:-

"The EU’s allegedly undemocratic nature has become one of the most potent arguments in the coming referendum. Some criticisms of the EU’s democratic deficit – that it is bureaucratic, untransparent and remote – are partly valid. It also lacks a demos, an electorate that thinks of itself as European.

The notion that the European commissioners are faceless bureaucrats is misleading. They are not directly elected by the people, but they are chosen by each of the 28 governments which in turn are elected. Almost all are politicians. The situation isn’t so different from the US cabinet. The secretary of state, treasury secretary and so forth are not directly elected by the people but appointed by the president.

The council, in which Britain has a 13% vote, is made up of ministers from the 28 countries. That is democratic enough, but its proceedings are held behind closed doors. A bigger weakness is that although voters elect members of the European Parliament, turnout is low, and few people know who represents them.

The most extreme critique of the EU is that it has brought down elected governments. Eurosceptics point to three examples: Berlusconi’s departure in Italy, Papandreou’s resignation as Greek PM at roughly the same time, and Tsipras’s inability to get rid of austerity policies after he was elected Greek PM. Although the EU certainly played a role in each of these situations, none meets the definition of a coup.

The EU suffers from a democratic deficit, but that doesn’t make it anti-democratic. The solution is not to quit the EU but rather to fight to make it more decentralised, transparent and accountable. In a generation or two it might even develop a demos."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/01/european-union-brussels-italy-greece

You seem to forget Ivan when the southern parts of the EU started to kick up a fuss about the EU forcing austerity on them they DID NOT cause the Financial crash but are been forced to pay for it. Then the EU forced on these parts of the EU unelected BUREAUCRATS to run there country because the people did not want Austerity instead of making the people who cause the financial crash to pay for it.

So it looks like that the EU are no different to Osborne & Co do not want to upset there bamker friends, it also gives us the eye opener to where Osborne got his Austerity plan from.

Redflag. As Hugo Dixon says in that article, “when a country borrows a vast sum of money, it obviously comes with strings attached”. If a country uses the euro, it must follow the policies of the European Central Bank, because obviously the currency can only have one value. That was probably the biggest flaw in Salmond’s case for Scotland leaving the EU: had Scotland kept the pound, as he proposed, it would still have been subject to the diktats of the Bank of England and wouldn’t have been fiscally independent.

As Britain does not use the euro and has no intention of ever doing so, your point about Greece and Italy is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not we should stay in the EU. I’m still waiting for you to give us one reason for leaving that stands up to any scrutiny. Don't you ever wonder why you are so out of step with Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna? They can't all be wrong, can they?

RF - Osborne had his austerity plan long before he grew out of short pants, never mind before any of the Eurozone bailouts and the imposition of the Troika on Greece. Furthermore, if the Kleptocracy in Whitehall and the EU are no difference, then how does leaving the EU supplement democracy in any way?  The behaviour of the ECB, EC and the IMF towards Greece leaves a lot to be desired.  It is ideological, isn't working, and is inhibiting growth rather than enhancing it - not so different to the Tory austerity that the UK opted to continue last summer.  Here's the thing though.  To complain that creditors no longer wish to stick by their borrowing covenants doesn't withstand scrutiny.  The alternative never was to haggle further down the line, it was to default.  Instead governments throughout Europe, Greece and the UK alike, opted to nationalize private debt in the interests of international capital.  Little to do with Europe, and everything to do with the fact that those with the real power are those holding the purse strings - That's where the democracy deficit lies.

TriMonk3y wrote:RF -  only if balanced - but either way not as fair as free trading in a harmonised common(ish) market, and nowhere near as easy.  Furthermore, if the access charges are the same on both sides then all you have created is a bucket load of unnecessary duty for government to waste on collecting said duty.

TM we are not getting free trade at the moment because we pay into the EU around £20 Billion to be in the club & yes we do get some of that back in the name of subsidies, I remember the butter & beef mountains when the EU was the EEC, I also remember the same EEC telling our farmers to leave there fields and not to plant crops in them.

As for the last part of your post TM will be up to the EU on how they handle the UK exit (if we vote out) if they want to take the hump because we have left the EU that is there problem.

Redflag wrote:TM we are not getting free trade at the moment.

Not so. Lets not confuse the economic doctrine of laissez faire with the consumer/contract concept of consideration and price - they are different things entirely. There are no customs barriers between members of the EU - that is free trade. Whether you have to pay to join the club or not is another matter entirely. Thats no different to joining up at Costco.

On your latter point, that cuts both ways. It doesn't change the fundamental point that all you are achieving by placing barriers between markets is additional taxation for government at both ends placing obstacles to business and thereby growth and employment.

Redflag wrote:-
we pay into the EU around £20 Billion to be in the club

No we don’t. Having said that you “don’t want to join anything which UKIP is heading up”, why are you again peddling UKIP lies? The cost of our membership of the EU in 2015 was £23 million a day, or just under £8.5 billion. Maybe if you read the sources on this forum instead of UKIP-generated tripe, you might not keep posting fiction.

https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

To put things in context:-

will be up to the EU on how they handle the UK exit (if we vote out) if they want to take the hump because we have left the EU that is there problem.

No, it will be our problem, not their problem. Our problem because 45% of our exports go to EU countries, whereas only 9-10% of the exports of EU countries come to us. Furthermore, if we leave the EU and wish to continue to trade with its member countries, we will either have to contribute to the EU budget but have no say, or pay import tariffs, which would make our exports more expensive and no doubt reduce sales. And in either case, any goods that we sell will have to comply with EU regulations and specifications. Is that so difficult to understand?

IVAN  Some one is telling Porkies big ones at that, the amount I have heard we pay the EU is around £20 Billion but we get back £9 Billion in subsidies, also the EU sells more to us than we sell to them.     How are the people of the UK supposed to work out what is best for them whether to stay orleave the EU.

The people that are telling us Porkies it will come back and bite them on the BUTT I hate people telling me LIES that is nothing better to make my anger rise, I am glad that I did my own research after I was told about the TTIP treaty and with our NHS against this treaty I am in good company my mind was made up to vote out before all the hoo-ha that erupted in the Tory party so as of todays date I will be voting OUT on the 23rd June.

PS The UK is the second biggest contributor to the EU pot next to Germany.

Not so RF. The UK has been the fourth biggest contributor through all of the statistics I have reviewed to get to the bottom of this assertion.

With a net contribution of 11.3mln Euro (2014) the UK is the fourth largest contributor to the EU budget after Germany, France and Italy. That's around 9 mln GBP now, and would have been around 8mln before the forthcoming referendum sent sterling crashing through the floor.

Source - straight from the horses mouth. europa.eu EU budget contribution statistics.

For those who prefer quick graphs there is a nice wee graph on Wikipedia.

Lets have some solid evidenced facts rather than hearsay.

Redflag wrote:-
Some one is telling Porkies big ones at that

Of course people are telling lies, including you it seems. Most of those who support the Leave campaign are UKIP supporters or Tories, and we all know that Tories have turned lying into an art form. “In good company” is something you are not.

If I go into Greggs and hand over a £5 note for a sausage roll, I get £4.10 change. The sausage roll hasn’t cost me £5, but according to the ‘logic’ (for want of a better word) used by UKIP, and even by Labour Leave, it would have done. The figures I used come from Full Fact, which is an independent fact-checking charity. If the Leave campaign had a credible case to make, there would be no need to grossly exaggerate the cost of EU membership, or pretend that 75% of our laws come from Brussels (when the true figure is no more than 15%), or claim that the EU accounts haven’t been audited. There would be no need to repeat the lie that the UK has “uncontrolled immigration”; there wouldn’t be camps of migrants on the French coast trying to get here if that were true. And if we’d really “lost our sovereignty”, our government wouldn’t be able to hold an in/out referendum.

You “have heard” that the EU sells more to us than we sell to them. Where did you hear that, down the pub or on ‘Any Answers’? Why don’t you display your sources, as some of us do? “The EU” doesn’t sell us anything, 27 other member countries of the EU do. It’s hardly surprising if 27 countries sell more things than one, is it? The point you repeatedly choose to ignore is that only 9-10% of exports from other EU countries come here, whereas we are dependent on them for 45% of our exports. Those 27 countries trade with each other and the rest of the world, we need them far more than they need us. To suggest otherwise is the height of jingoistic claptrap, all we can expect from right-wing ‘little Englanders’ who are so deluded as to think that we’re still the most powerful and important country in the world.

The Tories have refused to ask for the NHS to be exempted from the TTIP. As you’ve been told several times already, leaving the EU will not save us from the TTIP (some of which is, in any case, good). The Americans have said they will not give us a separate trade deal from the rest of Europe. Maybe this time you will bother to read the source:-

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

Yes, of course you’ll vote on 23rd June to leave the EU, despite not having produced one valid reason for doing so. You’ve made up your mind, and it’s obvious that no amount of evidence or reasoning will make you change it. Forget the workers, whose statutory right to paid holidays and maternity leave would no longer be protected from Tory malevolence. Just ignore the views of everyone who is anyone in the labour movement.

Yet neither you nor the Leave campaign have offered any vision of what we could expect after a Brexit – the Norwegian model or the Swiss model perhaps, both of which have many disadvantages? We can’t turn the clock back to 1973 even if we wanted to, and the Commonwealth countries have long since made other trade arrangements. The world has moved on, and global corporations are often more powerful than national governments these days. Countries are queuing up to join the EU, yet the dinosaurs want us to leave it. The idea that we can ‘go it alone’ in an age of big organisations and super powers makes no sense whatsoever. And the same can be said for the reasons you offer for leaving the EU, not one of which stands up to any form of scrutiny.

There is usually a cliché to cover the argument, which in this discussion is the old favourite, "The Devil is in the detail".

In the next four months every single last detail will be dragged out, discussed, and discarded like an old crisps-packet. Political careers will be enhanced or destroyed. But the fundamental decision that everyone has to reach is whether we are better off as we are, or should grasp at the hopefully greener grass on the other side of the fence. (Another cliché, sorry!).

TriMonk3y wrote:
With a net contribution of 11.3mln Euro (2014) the UK is the fourth largest contributor to the EU budget after Germany, France and Italy.  That's around 9 mln GBP now, and would have been around 8mln before the forthcoming referendum sent sterling crashing through the floor.  

Typo. The millions should read billions.

TriMonk3y wrote:RF -  only if balanced - but either way not as fair as free trading in a harmonised common(ish) market, and nowhere near as easy.  Furthermore, if the access charges are the same on both sides then all you have created is a bucket load of unnecessary duty for government to waste on collecting said duty.

At the moment we are been charged around £9.5 Billion (after the rebate) besides the money WE HAVE TO abide by rules and regulations that they demand we follow, so we pay twice for what they call FREE TRADE that in my book is not free trade.        The reason for the Fear Factor been brought in against those that want the UK to leave the EU is IF the UK vote to leave those at the top of the EU have a fear that Italy Spain Greece Portugal Cypress will be the next to say they are3 leaving.

RF

No.

Free trade means no protectionist duties, nothing else - we have free trade - to argue otherwise is to completely misconstrue what free trade is. The UK pays, just like everybody else to be a member of the club. Fine - take issue with that if you wish, I don't.

On the other hand, I don't consider directives, which the UK gets to implement however it chooses so long as it achieves the stipulated aims, that set standards for occupational safety and health, environmental safety, employment standards, product safety, consumer protection, food hygiene and so on to be paying a price at all. The number of EU Regulations taking direct effect, on the other hand, is miniscule. Why? two reasons:

1. By and large these are things that we would have done anyway. The UK has been highly influential in the EU legislative process, and if we take occupational health and safety for instance the entire EU regime is based almost entirely upon the post 1974 UK model. The EU is a popular bogeyman for unpopular decisions that the UK would have made anyway.

2. These rules add to the economy rather than detract by helping to ensure the retention of a healthy and well qualified workforce and population, and by providing standards that items to be traded must meet.

If on the other hand you don't want employment, consumer and environmental protection, amongst many other areas, by all means vote to leave - but a serious question, how is rejecting these protections of ordinary people compatible with the labour values that you pronounce so passionately? What is the alternative, and how do you propose to replace them post brexit?

The fatal flaw in the case for Brexit

Extracts from an article by Philip Stephens of the FT:-

What do you mean by "out"? It seems reasonable to ask those who want Britain to leave the EU just how impenetrable would the subsequent fog be in the English Channel. Would Britain stay in the single market or cut loose entirely? The question goes unanswered. The Vote Leave campaign has turned this silence into an article of faith.

The essence of the case for the EU is that Britain is a more prosperous and secure nation inside the European club. The Commonwealth, the Anglosphere and the rest are valuable adjuncts to membership rather than realistic alternatives. The EU remains one of the twin anchors of Britain's foreign policy. The other is the defence and security relationship with the US embedded in NATO. As anyone in Washington will tell you, you cannot pull up one without raising the other.

The Outs play a consciously fuzzier tune: a Britain unshackled from the EU could run its own affairs and, critically, could shut its borders to migrants. The calculation is that identity and emotion will trump cold economic and political facts. The populist trick is to be anti-everything: anti-elites, anti-big business, anti-globalisation, anti-Brussels and, of course, anti-immigration.

The promise to "take back control" explains the reluctance of Vote Leave to discuss the alternatives. Once the choices are explored, the precious sovereignty beloved of nativists is exposed as a chimera. We live in a dangerous and interconnected world. States have ceded power to globalisation. Borders are porous. Even rich, advanced nations such as Britain would struggle to advance their vital national interests in splendid isolation.

For the whole article:-
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2015/11/13/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-case-for-brexit

QUOTE: "We should ask ourselves why President Vladimir Putin is so keen to see Britain separate from its European partners."

Sir Peter Westmacott
former British Ambassador
to Turkey, France and USA

“Once they enter the workplace, the British are amongst the worst idlers in the world.”

Redflag. That was written by Priti Patel, one of the extreme right-wing Tories with whom you are lining up on the Leave side. The Tories are continually destroying workplace rights, for example on redundancy notices and access to industrial tribunals. Be in no doubt that Patel and her genial boss, Iain Duncan Smith, wouldn’t hesitate to scrap our entitlement to 28 days of paid leave annually once it was out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I can imagine her arguing that there is no such entitlement in the USA, so why should British “idlers” have it?

Do you have such little regard for British workers that you are prepared to help make that happen? Can’t you see that you’re betraying the very people for whom you have in the past travelled the length and breadth of England to support? How do you explain that most unions, 70% of the members of the British Chambers of Commerce, all of the Labour Party apart from a few freaks like Kate Hoey and Frank Field, all of the Lib Dems, all SNP MPs, Plaid Cymru and most of the Greens, are united in wanting us to stay in the EU?

You took up a position – that you think Britain should leave the EU – and then scratched around for reasons to justify your stance, and you have completely failed to find even one that is valid. Time and again you’ve posted so-called ‘facts’ on this board, and on every occasion they’ve been shown to be wrong. You’re behaving in exactly the same way that Iain Duncan Smith does. When confronted with evidence, his reply is always “that’s not what I believe”. Your response seems to be to either repeat the lie or produce some more misleading tripe which could have come straight from the mouth of Farage.

You still won’t get it into your head that if we leave the EU and want to trade with its member countries, we will have to accept its standards and regulations. Furthermore, we would either have to continue to contribute to the EU budget but have no say in how it’s spent, or pay import tariffs, which would make the price of our exports uncompetitive and require lots more of those “unelected bureaucrats” which you so despise. The Leave supporters have offered us no plan of what would happen after Brexit; the whole idea is absurd and hopefully will soon unravel. I’m not surprised that Ladbrokes is today offering odds of 10/3 on that the UK will stay in the EU.

I think you have a somewhat inflated idea of the importance of the UK if you really believe that 27 other countries couldn’t make the EU work without us. Just six countries managed to do so between 1957 and 1973. If the Greeks had had any plans to leave the EU, they would have defaulted on their debt and left then, instead of accepting a bail-out and the strings attached to it. You may not have noticed that countries are queuing up to join the EU, not leave it. The people in Britain who are blinkered enough to want to leave are ‘Little Englanders’, racists and xenophobes, along with Tory politicians like Priti Patel, who see this as the chance to destroy what few rights our “workplace idlers” still have.

Thank you Ivan for bringing the topic of workers rights we are I believe in the EU at the moment so how come there is a bill in the HOC to stifle more of the rights of the members of Trade Unions I do not see the EU stepping in and stop this one from going through and becoming law.

As for the last part of your post I do not think the UK is better than other parts of the EU, but what I do believe is that the EU will come crashing down like a house of cards IF the UK decides to leave the EU and those at the top of the EU know this even Merkel is worrying about her own career at the moment because of her own stupidity over saying that ALL refugees where welcome in Germany did she not think that those economic migrants would not be listening to what she was saying ??

RF

Reflag wrote:...so how come there is a bill in the HOC to stifle more of the rights of the members of Trade Unions I do not see the EU stepping in and stop this one from going through and becoming law.

Presumably either because it does not directly contravene EU law, or no other member or the Commission have referred it to CJEU yet - however I have previously listed many aspects of employment rights that are protected in EU law, as well as areas relating to consumer rights, the environment and so on. What you have highlighted perfectly is that despite its EU membership, the UK remains a sovereign state - contrary to what advocates of Leave would have you believe.

Reflag wrote: ...even Merkel is worrying about her own career at the moment because of her own stupidity over saying that ALL refugees where welcome in Germany did she not think that those economic migrants would not be listening to what she was saying ??

What does this have to do with the price of fish? So long as the Le Touquet agreement remains in place the UK is largely able to control non-EU immigration, it is leaving the UK which puts that arrangement at risk. Are you concerned about employment protections, or is this really about migration? Either way, UK workers, and borders, are better protected remaining in the EU.

You know things have reached rock-bottom when Taxi-drivers give you an opinion and even Estate Agents feel entitled to comment on the Brexit proposals.

http://www.cityam.com/236200/foxtons-hit-by-stamp-duty-changes-and-eu-uncertainty

Redflag wrote:-
how come there is a bill in the HOC to stifle more of the rights of the members of Trade Unions I do not see the EU stepping in and stop this one from going through and becoming law.

I’ve answered that several times already. Some workplace rights are enshrined in EU law, such as the right to 28 days of paid holiday a year and maternity leave. Thanks to the EU, employers cannot treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time workers, working parents have a right to take leave to look after their children, and temporary agency workers and workers with fixed-term contracts are entitled to the same basic conditions as comparable workers with permanent contracts.

For those rights, the European Court of Justice is the supreme court, and the Tories can’t undo them as long as we are in the EU. Rest assured that they will if given the chance – there is no statutory entitlement to paid leave in the USA. I can just imagine the argument that employers can’t be expected to pay for both the enhanced minimum wage and paid holidays. Rights that are not enshrined in EU law and arose in the UK can be, and are being, destroyed.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/03/brexit-bad-employment-rights/

I do believe is that the EU will come crashing down like a house of cards IF the UK decides to leave the EU

Do you? 27 countries can't survive without the 28th? This isn’t a religion, but you can believe what you like, or what your friend told you, or what somebody said on ‘Any Answers’, or what you consider is “more than likely”. However, to date you have not produced one piece of evidence to support your ‘beliefs’, or given us one valid reason to support your blinkered stance on the EU. You also haven’t attempted to answer any of the questions which you’ve been asked by other posters. Why don’t you go back through the last few pages of this thread and count up how many times you’ve been shown to be completely wrong with your unfounded assertions?

If workers rights are so enstrined why do employers not ateer to them, you and I know full well we have employers in the UK who can get around EU law and I do not see the EU standing up to the Hunt on behalf of our Junior doctors in the NHS.

As for the other 27 countries in the EU you seem to forget that Italy Spain Greece Portugal Cypress & Southern Ireland are not happy about the Austerity that has been hoisted on them and the unemployment these countries most of the people are not happy with the EU and as you know through this Far Right political parties are on the rise in these places.

I was told about TTIP by a Labour party friend I then checked it out for myself, and when I was checking I found out that the Tories where been given donations by a private health company connected too the private health sector in the USA. My mind was made up long before the HOO-Ha from the Tory back benches.

The Patriotic Case for Britain in Europe

From an article by Dan Jarvis MP:-

"The 23 June referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is a moment that will define the future of our country. It is a choice not just about our EU membership but our national identity. Britain itself is on the ballot paper, because a vote to leave the EU will embolden those who seek to break up our United Kingdom. That would be a terrible consequence of Britain leaving the EU.

Anyone who truly understands what patriotism means knows that it is about our shared national identity, our culture and values. It is not about wrapping yourself in the Union Jack. It's about standing up for our country: doing the right thing for our people. Do we continue as a country seeking to play a role on the global stage or do we consign ourselves to a bit-part role of an island in the North Atlantic? Like Iceland but with more daylight hours. Can anyone really say it is patriotic to put our country in a situation where we would have to beg our European neighbours to access their common market while no longer having a say over the rules?

I think it is patriotic to stay in the EU so that the people living in every corner of Britain can benefit from a stronger economy, better jobs and more protection for their rights at work. It is patriotic to be part of Europe-wide rules like the European Arrest Warrant that keep our people safe and make sure terrorists and criminals face justice. And it's patriotic to say that the EU has made a vital contribution to making Western Europe more secure, enjoying its longest period of peace in 2,000 years."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-jarvis/the-patriotic-case-for-britain-in-europe_b_9286576.html