true, but if they make things too harsh then it's obvious you look elsewhere. As I say we are too important a customer to be 'dumped' on
BJ was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show yesterday. He was quite reasonably IMO waiting for the outcome of the Cameron EU renegotiation before making an informed decision. He decided no fundamental changes to the UK's relationship had been secured by Cameron & therefore opted to join the leave camp. Personally I don't really care what his reasons are, I am just glad the biggest hitter on the political stage in this country thinks, as I do, the UK would be better off outside of the European Union.
The hypocrisy of both camps is clouding the debate, and that's a problem. Everybody knows that a part of Boris' motivation is personal, and is part of the political maneuvering he's been doing ever since announcing his plan to run for London Mayor. And that others such as IDS, Gove etc. are all campaigning with one eye on their roles in a potential post-Cameron Tory government. By accusing the In campaign of trading on fear, however, is hypocritical in the extreme, because that's exactly what they have been doing since the start of the debates, with comments about immigration and future further erosion of UK powers. Playing straight into the Little England mentality. Unfortunately, the In campaign are barely better. There are lots of areas where we simply won't know the future until any No vote is made. Playing on this as their main topic doesn't help to clarify what the benefits of staying in are, any more than publishing scaremongering articles about Immigration, UK sovereignty, and the demise of public services does the Out campaign any credit. I'm still voting In, because (as I have said before) I cannot vote for a campaign who blatantly lie, and who send out leaflets stating "if we stay in the EU, the NHS will die". I despise the people that sent that, and will never vote along their lines.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...culation-europe-is-ungovernable-a6910126.html I believe Boris to be a far shrewder political operator than Cameron. However it is Osbourne who has most to lose.
Agree with that, which is where negotiations to the relationship and access to the market come in, as both sides have something to gain. Which would inevitably lead to some loss of sovereignty, as per Norway example above. Which is why I stand by my original point that the sovereignty issue is not clear cut.
The sovereignty issue is just one of the many things that are unknown at the moment, and won't be clarified if and until after the die is cast in favour of an exit. What the trade agreement will actually be, what the border control situation will actually be, whether or not we will still be a signatory to Schengen, what the impact to our financial and service industries will be, what happens to farming and fishins industries, many of whom are set up based on EU law and regulation, how an exit would affect our relationships within NATO, what difference this will mean to our armed forces, who are actually now part of an EU force even though they remain apart from that structure in all but the operational deployment sense, what then happens to the issue of Scottish Independence, how freedom of work and freedom of residency are affected, what happens to the ex-pats already living in Europe with regard to pensions, access to healthcare, and their continued ability to live and work abroad, what happens to the EU nationals living here (same subset of questions) etc. That's a very, very long list of unknowns. Sovereignty is a very handy peg to hang an argument on, because nobody really knows what it means. People say that it's about being in charge of our own destiny. Many countries don't have a sovereign but are independent. It's about how much of our lives are influenced by Europe as much as anything, and that has always been, and will always be, a moveable feast based on the collective will of the member states - us included. And if we vote no, I hope that everyone understands that when people talk of a 'leap into the unknown' - remember the list of 'what if' points above...
You aren't taking account of the comparitive bargaining powers of the UK and Norway. Norway is not the 5th biggest economy in the world and the second biggest net contributor to the EU. What the EU will see, if British citizens vote OUT, is potential loss of both deep pocket and a major buyer in the single market
That's the TTIP agreement that everyone is arguing about now. They can drive a decent bargain because the EU market as a whole is comparable to the U.S. Although a lot of people think it might be too generous to the U.S. In terms of loosening standards and regulations. Which is another argument.
So no tariffs then. It just seems to me the UK bargaining position, whether with the EU or the US, extends beyond trade - security and relative military muscle for example. How enthuiastic will we be about large contributions to Nato, if we are unreasonably penalised after a democratic vote by our citizens
Turkey demanding double the money to stem the migrant tide, wants easier access for their citizens to get visas to get access to Europe and wants quicker entry into the EU. That should be another couple of hundred thousand for the OUT vote
Germany is likely to be the most benign to us in negotiations post Brexit, and even they are saying a financial contribution and free movement of people are set in stone. Even if this is just an opening gambit, or part of the 'stay' campaign, there are plenty of Eastern European countries with an equal vote to Germany who maybe won't be particularly nice. Surely our trade with Rumania is basically one way and in people? Cut that off and even if we are the biggest economy in the world it'll mean bugger all to the Rumanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Baltics etc, unless their people can still come here to work and send cash home. The terms of exit, which could include future trade agreements, are subject to qualified majority voting, where 35% of voters can block decisions (I think). With the U.K. out the 'protectionist' bloc within the EU has a majority over the 'free trade' bloc. One country we can count on is Ireland, where the economy is forecast to shrink by 1.1% even in the best case scenario by 2030 if we leave and by 3.1% in the worst case scenario. Not as smooth a ride as may be claimed. But I'm sure many would sacrifice the trade if it stops foreigners coming here and taking our jobs. Many of which won't exist without the trade, but hey ho.
I 100% agree. Follow the thread back if you have the inclination (hardly exciting) and you'll see I intervened to make the point that the sovereignty issue is far from 'clear cut' as was being put forward.
I've noticed that Merkel and the European Council have just now spoken about and addressed the migrant crisis. This cartoon sums it up ... please log in to view this image
surely someone must know the answers to all of the above questions why are they not being answered all I seem to see is what would happen blah blah blah questions has the govt or eu done any analisis or is everything up in the air and no one actually has made any decisions the eu should come out and say what would happen to the uk if there is a no vote the uk should say what will happen either way
Of course nobody knows. All of these things would form part of the Exit process, and until such time as an exit process is needed, these discussions won't take place. There's no precedent for this happening, so no - nobody can possibly know the answer to any of these.
Immigration/refugee stuff getting ever more dodgy. EU attempting a deal with Turkey which sounds a bit like send one back from a Greek island get a new one from a Turkish camp free, in return to visa free travel to the Schengen area for Turks and a lot of money. Some EU countries, especially Hungary, unlikely to support it. Meanwhile it seems that the 3 companies, including the dreaded G4S, contracted to look after asylum seekers in the UK (excluding from Syria under Cameron's promise) are in a state of breakdown, which is hardly surprising as they undertook to house and process these people for £9.35 per head per day. You get what you pay for I suspect, in this case very little. The numbers involved, about 17,000, are of course tiny compared to many other places. This in the same week that it emerged that our border control specialists (I.e immigration officers) only check about 80% of passports of those arriving in the UK, their £1bn system not working very well. I really don't understand this, I can't remember ever returning to the UK without someone looking at my passport. Perhaps they glance at it and then don't bother to ask the computer what it thinks. What a mess. Meanwhile the Bank of England is preparing to offer unlimited lines of (taxpayer underwritten) credit to financial institutions in the event of the markets seizing up after Brexit, as the £ hits a 7 year low. Which is reassuring. The risk is 'minimal' as borrowers have to pay back within 6 months......err what happens if the chaos means they haven't got the funds to pay back?
