Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The EU - in or out? This is the hamsterwheel.

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The EU - in or out? This is the hamsterwheel.

Old 24th Feb 2016, 05:20
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
I'm not convinced you have to be in the EFTA to export into the single market.

Last time I looked the USA wasn't in the EFTA and makes significant exports to EU markets without having to accept free movement. Why would we be different?
Groundbased is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 05:52
  #822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Smile

Racedo ..."a million pensioners will be returning to UK while EU workers will exit".
Do you agree?
bosnich71 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 06:21
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
I'm still not hearing any convincing arguments from the In crowd. Other than assertions that we will be safer, stronger, and influential there appears to be no substance to justify these claims. They cannot provide solid arguments or evidence for why these statements should be true.

The economic arguments are much stronger from the Out crowd. See John Redwoods blog on the volatility of sterling for some interesting views on the "Boris" effect, namely that it doesn't exist.

The area where I believe the Out arguments are weak and need further elaboration are around the post Out vote negotiation, and the question of Scotland. Over on the Scottish independence thread there is much discussion of the situation were more people to vote to remain in Scotland when there is an overall majority in the UK for leave. I think the position in this situation needs to be clearly defined.

The post Out vote negotiation needs clarification. It is my understanding that the treaty allows for a 2 year negotiation in the event of a country deciding to leave. It was implied on a discussion in a Radio 4 programme on Monday that if agreements are not reached within 2 years then the process is terminated and the country in question is out with no agreement in place. To me this puts increasing negotiating power in the hands of the EU countries as that clock ticks down to 2 years. Further detail on the expectations of the Out group and the approach that would be taken to it needs to be brought out to support the strong economic argument that is already in place.

For example, it is interesting to note that our balance of payments would improve by 1 fifth on exit as a result of stopping the current contributions to the EU which we do not get back from them.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 07:23
  #824 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 75
Posts: 119
Now I'm really confused. This morning Michael Gove claims that David Cameron's deal may not be legally sound. Neither of them are lawyers but I assume they both have teams of legal specialists at their disposal who surely would have been consulted. Who are we to believe? This is probably the most important single issue so far in the debate, so perhaps our own 'Legal Eagle' can give us a view from his high place. I am also wondering what the cost of the whole referendum business will be. Has anybody any idea before I bury myself in figures again?
Mr Oleo Strut is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 07:41
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hereford UK
Age: 63
Posts: 1
I'd be more interested in why the pro EU members of the government can use the full infrastructure (CS) to promote their pro stance and the leave EU MPs can't. Does this mean I am paying so the government can promote the EU when I think it stinks. Surely there must be a budget of some sorts?

It's also worrying that nobody in our elected government is doing nothing about the fact they just might get a shock on the 23rd. There seems to be no planning at all going on should, as I hope we do, leave.
MOSTAFA is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 07:57
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,949
"It's true that leaving the EU brings uncertainty but that is the price of freedom, if you want certainty by all means stay in the EU. What are we certain of: that we will never be able to control our immigration and we will never be able to control our own laws. That's the certainty of the subservient!" Melanie Phillips
fireflybob is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 08:23
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
I think what Gove is actually saying is that the European Court are legally obliged to consider the agreement when making judgements, but that their interpretation may be that elements of it are discriminatory (for example) and therefore they could ignore it in their rulings.

They would have considered it, but ignored it, and this could apply to numerous specific cases - it would be death of a thousand cuts.

However, that could equally apply when interpreting amended treaties. The only way to ensure the European Court can't overturn our wishes is to leave.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 08:34
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Well as UK import billions more than export then where are you going to substitute these imports from ?
You are quite right we do at the moment because the strength of the pound makes our goods more expensive, a weaker pound means we are more competitive, it also makes foreign goods more expensive meaning UK goods will become cheaper to make in the UK therefore helping manufacturing, jobs and the number of UK goods bought by the UK population

Nope fraid not as Freedom of Movement is part of EFTA in conjunction with EU so if Uk decides people can't move freely then EU will do exactly the same and a Million pensioners will be returning to UK while EU workers will exit.
You are assuming we get the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. Lots of countries have free trade deals with the EU but do not have free movement of labour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

So who will do all these jobs ?
We still have about 2 million unemployed but if wee need to use labour from outside the UK we can target the right people by using an Australian style points system.
Rob Courtney is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 08:37
  #829 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,974
Now I'm really confused. This morning Michael Gove claims that David Cameron's deal may not be legally sound. Neither of them are lawyers but I assume they both have teams of legal specialists at their disposal who surely would have been consulted.
EU Law Analysis - Expert insight into EU law developments: The draft UK/EU renegotiation deal: is it 'legally binding and irreversible'?
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 09:09
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
Orac

The article doesn't seem to open up? One question I ask is that David Cameron has spearheaded this vote based on what he has achieved in the negotiations on a reformed Europe.

I don't think he has achieved very much at all but that is the package he is asking the British people to vote on.

Should any part of that agreement be deemed illegal or not ratified by the EU then the whole EU vote would have to be declared null and void should an IN vote based on that agreement be successful ?

He has declared that the agreement heralds a reformed Europe (rubbish) and asked the British public based on that to vote to remain in the EU.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 09:18
  #831 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,974
OK, the original has a bl*spot in the name, so it is disabled here.

Here is a summary in which the second paragraph is a link to the original site and article.

Explaining the EU deal: is it legally binding?


Last edited by ORAC; 24th Feb 2016 at 09:49.
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 09:40
  #832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
This has serious implications and I stress again if any or part of the deal made which the British public are basing their In Out vote on are not ratified or found to be legally binding then I cannot see how an IN vote could also be Valid
Another vote would have to be made on what actually is legal or ratified

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 10:04
  #833 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 75
Posts: 119
Yes, from a lay position I would expect a 'stay-in' vote to result in an immediate legal challenge which could drag on for years - no win, no fee, of course!
Mr Oleo Strut is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 15:14
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,629
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
OK, the original has a bl*spot in the name, so it is disabled here.

Here is a summary in which the second paragraph is a link to the original site and article.

Explaining the EU deal: is it legally binding?

It doesn't matter how much Gove and his Cronies try to scaremonger - I this link puts that myth to bed.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...endum-35653155

But wait - how many posting before a UKIP-er posts to doubt Donald Tusk's sincerity?
ATNotts is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 15:33
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Hm, what I think this says is that a lawyer has a view that with the exception of the "Ever closer Union bit" there is some chance that all the other elements could be overruled by the EU Court and on 4 of them other countries could do it.

There is one thing I think Gove is correct on. The Court trumps states, so even when these changes are written into treaties they can be ruled against by the Court. They may not choose to do this, but they equally may well do.

I think it unlikely that this deal can be "thrown out" by the court or other states. However I do believe it's much more likely that a series of legal challenges could be upheld by the EU court, effectively side lining the changes that have been agreed upon.

The only real test of this will be when a legal challenge is made. Again if we want to be sure the EU court can't interfere, we have to vote out.
Groundbased is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 15:42
  #836 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,974
POLITICO: Euroskepticism in Scotland reaches record high

Scots are more Euroskeptic than ever before, according to new research that casts doubt on claims by Scottish nationalists that a Brexit vote would take them out of the European Union against their will.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Sunday that a vote for Brexit would “almost certainly” trigger a second Scottish independence referendum because the country supports remaining in the EU.

The NatCen Social Research study, which was reported by the Guardian, found that three out of five Scots can be classified as Euroskeptic, with only one fifth happy “to leave things as they are.” That puts Scots only five percentage points below the average number of British citizens classified as Euroskeptic.

The study was based on the annual Scottish Social Attitudes survey, conducted between July 2015 and January 2016. It also found that more than 40 percent of respondents want the EU to have less power and 17 percent want to leave the Union completely — the highest proportion since 1999......
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 16:39
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
Still doesn't answer my question ?
The referendum is based on an agreement made by the PM which is supposed to
Be a new reformed Europe and agreement to safeguard the UK
As it is he has come away with little of his original demands but effectively has an agreed package which the uK will vote on
If part was not ratified or was blocked surely the referendum would have to be declared null and void and another referendum called on what we do have ratified and fixed in law
We cannot be conned to vote in on a pup agreement ?

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 18:10
  #838 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 75
Posts: 119
You'll have to ask David Cameron, he got us into all this. On the other hand neither he nor Michael Gove are lawyers, so not much point.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 18:45
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,378
Really the Cameron "agreement" is relatively minor and whether it sticks or not isn't going to sway many people - the real question is do you want to be in Europe or not?

A couple of other points - I bet DWP can't wait to implement this "child benefit as in the M/S of origin" - any bets on whether that costs more to implement than it saves?

and has anybody actually met a real person who feels "ever closer union" will result in a super-state or wants one - I haven't, they all seem to be proud of being European but even prouder of their own home country
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 20:08
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 68
Posts: 554
Security

Way back at post no 1 on this thread Mr Oleo Strut mentioned 70 years of peace in Europe as being one of the achievements of the EU. During his speech in the Commons, Cameron pushed the message of security and today we have a letter signed by various military top brass (some of whom I have met and respect) saying ... essentially .... that our security as a nation is enhanced by our membership of the EU.

The EU, as such, has no military power under its control and I would not advocate that this situation change to any great extent until the organization matures. However, it does have a huge amount of 'soft power'.

I believe this is evidenced in the way the countries of the former Soviet bloc have been absorbed into the EU as well as some of the nations of the former Yugoslavia. I served and worked

And, if we are going to do statistics, it is worthwhile recording that there has never been a war between two members of the EU a fact that is in marked contrast to the 200 years before when every minor principality seemed to be in conflict with its neighbours.

I wonder what would have happened in Europe if one could write an alternative history without the EU.
larssnowpharter is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.