BREGZIT (GE 2019) - Do Viking FM Still Have a Vacancy for Jo?

245671342

Posts

  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    ballysmate wrote:
    The business case to stay in is fairly simple, and is two points.

    1) There is no certainty the UK will be able to renegotiate exactly the same free-trade agreement it currently has with the existing 27 member states. Switzerland, for example, has some restrictions (particularly in relation to Financial Services, which would explain why London is a bigger finance hub than Zurich/Geneva). That uncertainty isn't good for business, nor is the possibility that the free-trade agreements won't be as all encompassing.

    2) Businesses will still want/have to trade with Europe, and will still have to comply with their rules & regs in order to trade with them, whether they are in the EU or not. What would happen in event of Brexit is the UK would forfeit the ability to influence the policy, but UK businesses would, in most cases, still have to adhere to it.

    1. It seems that the EU is trying to address that by imposing a tax.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -plan.html

    2. Yes, we would have to comply. The same as we comply to trade with the US, Australia, China and over 150 other countries. So what?

    Influence policy? That is what has led to this position. There is a feeling that we have limited influence on the EU in steering it on a course that benefits us.
    Perhaps if we joined properly we might be able to influence the EU more.

    Quite. Might
    If we are the only ones trying to apply the brakes on the rush to full political/economic union our influence will remain minimal.
    As I have said before, I am as yet undecided. I want some cold hard facts to make an informed decision, not the usual 'We will lose our ability to trade with the EU' bollox.
    I make no apology for wanting the best deal for the UK, regardless of its effect on the EU.
  • LookyhereLookyhere Posts: 987
    I am with the poster who pointed out the defence and environment benefits of the EU, if we leave, we d be swooping a known for a unknown, there are plenty of nations that want to slow federalisation within Europe, as for trade, what if the eu decided to punish us for leaving? what then, go to the courts in strasburg ? :)
    anyway, its all academic, we ll never get a free vote.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Lookyhere wrote:
    I am with the poster who pointed out the defence and environment benefits of the EU, if we leave, we d be swooping a known for a unknown, there are plenty of nations that want to slow federalisation within Europe, as for trade, what if the eu decided to punish us for leaving? what then, go to the courts in strasburg ? :)
    anyway, its all academic, we ll never get a free vote.

    Oooh a new angle. :!: The EU may not abide by its treaties? Interesting...
    Not really selling the institution to me are you? :lol:
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... ounts.html

    More trouble in our one big happy EU family. :(
    Putin offers Greece money to hold off its creditors in exchange for Greece blocking EU sanctions. Interesting times indeed.
    Common foreign policy? Indeed.
  • LookyhereLookyhere Posts: 987
    ballysmate wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    I am with the poster who pointed out the defence and environment benefits of the EU, if we leave, we d be swooping a known for a unknown, there are plenty of nations that want to slow federalisation within Europe, as for trade, what if the eu decided to punish us for leaving? what then, go to the courts in strasburg ? :)
    anyway, its all academic, we ll never get a free vote.

    Oooh a new angle. :!: The EU may not abide by its treaties? Interesting...
    Not really selling the institution to me are you? :lol:

    there is sticking to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law :)

    as to Putin, he is making hay whilst the sun shines, any country in Greece's position will look at life lines from anywhere but given the USA response to this idea, then its hardly in Greece's long term interests to pi$$ the yanks.

    but you do really sound like you ve made your mind up but instead of being soooooo negative about everything, why dont you point out the positives of leaving?
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Trying not to dwell on the negs, but people on here have been extolling the positives and I don't like accepting things without thought. As I said, I was genuinely undecided although now I must admit I would need more convincing to vote IN than OUT.
    I have given it some thought today and listened to what people have said and to be honest, I haven't heard a compelling argument to stay in. I can't think of anything that the EU brings us that is a game changer. I just would like impartial information. At the moment, I could still be persuaded to vote either way though.
    How can I be anything else than undecided because we haven't been given any terms of membership to vote on.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,306
    ballysmate wrote:
    Trying not to dwell on the negs, but people on here have been extolling the positives and I don't like accepting things without thought. As I said, I was genuinely undecided although now I must admit I would need more convincing to vote IN than OUT.
    I have given it some thought today and listened to what people have said and to be honest, I haven't heard a compelling argument to stay in. I can't think of anything that the EU brings us that is a game changer. I just would like impartial information. At the moment, I could still be persuaded to vote either way though.
    How can I be anything else than undecided because we haven't been given any terms of membership to vote on.

    Can you describe for me the future GB, or rump UK after Scotland decide to stay in the EU, after the escape from the dread bootheels of Brussels?

    Seems to me we are a small damp crowded offshore island with few natural resources whose status as a trading nation in an increasingly competitive globalised trading world would be seriously diminished by narking off our neighbouring trading block.

    Guess we could just keep buying and selling houses to each other.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    orraloon wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    Trying not to dwell on the negs, but people on here have been extolling the positives and I don't like accepting things without thought. As I said, I was genuinely undecided although now I must admit I would need more convincing to vote IN than OUT.
    I have given it some thought today and listened to what people have said and to be honest, I haven't heard a compelling argument to stay in. I can't think of anything that the EU brings us that is a game changer. I just would like impartial information. At the moment, I could still be persuaded to vote either way though.
    How can I be anything else than undecided because we haven't been given any terms of membership to vote on.

    Can you describe for me the future GB, or rump UK after Scotland decide to stay in the EU, after the escape from the dread bootheels of Brussels?

    Seems to me we are a small damp crowded offshore island with few natural resources whose status as a trading nation in an increasingly competitive globalised trading world would be seriously diminished by narking off our neighbouring trading block.

    Guess we could just keep buying and selling houses to each other.

    So the best reason you can come up with for staying in is that you don't want to pi55 em off?

    I never mentioned bootheels of anyone, including Brussels
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    I am not trying to be negative, I would just like someone to explain why it would be disastrous for us to leave.
    This is a genuine request because come the referendum we all need to know. Perhaps someone from business could explain how we would suffer. If the prospect would be bad for UK or rUK we really need to know how and why.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    ballysmate wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Can you describe for me the future GB, or rump UK after Scotland decide to stay in the EU, after the escape from the dread bootheels of Brussels?

    Seems to me we are a small damp crowded offshore island with few natural resources whose status as a trading nation in an increasingly competitive globalised trading world would be seriously diminished by narking off our neighbouring trading block.

    Guess we could just keep buying and selling houses to each other.

    So the best reason you can come up with for staying in is that you don't want to pi55 em off?

    I never mentioned bootheels of anyone, including Brussels


    tbh, europe is possibly better off with out us, we always face both toward the USA and Europe, never fully integrating with Europe, just heckling from the side lines.
    Its already been pointed out the defence and environment considerations, ignoring the trade implications, you need to come up with reasons to leave?
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Lookyhere wrote:
    I am with the poster who pointed out the defence and environment benefits of the EU, if we leave, we d be swooping a known for a unknown,

    How do you mean? How can say that the defence capabilities and structures of the EU are known? If it is known, who contributes what? What is the command and control structure? What of our nuclear arsenal? No, we would be stepping into the unknown by amalgamating our forces with the other 27 states.

    The EU has certainly been beneficial to the environment though.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    mamba80 wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Can you describe for me the future GB, or rump UK after Scotland decide to stay in the EU, after the escape from the dread bootheels of Brussels?

    Seems to me we are a small damp crowded offshore island with few natural resources whose status as a trading nation in an increasingly competitive globalised trading world would be seriously diminished by narking off our neighbouring trading block.

    Guess we could just keep buying and selling houses to each other.

    So the best reason you can come up with for staying in is that you don't want to pi55 em off?

    I never mentioned bootheels of anyone, including Brussels


    tbh, europe is possibly better off with out us, we always face both toward the USA and Europe, never fully integrating with Europe, just heckling from the side lines.
    Its already been pointed out the defence and environment considerations, ignoring the trade implications, you need to come up with reasons to leave?

    If we left, it would appear that the Lisbon treaty would ensure free access to the EU markets.
    We would regain the right to police our borders. Whether we choose to do is a different matter. We may prefer to reach an agreement that allows free movement if such movement is mutually beneficial.
    We maintain our current military alliances and the right to act unilaterally if we see fit. Most, of the EU states are NATO members. Do you seriously believe that these countries that have been bit players in the contributions to NATO will suddenly up their defence capability and expenditure.
    We would be able to continue to set our own interest rates and monetary policy outside the Euro, which is still in danger of blowing up in the EU's face.
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.
    We have seen all over the world, Africa, Asia, Yugoslavia, Indian Sub-continent, even Iraq , that the creation of artificial boundaries and states pushed together where the people have different aspirations/ religions/ cultures have presented difficulties of varying magnitudes.
    Until the terms of our continued membership are set out, I still can't say with certainty which way I will vote.
    I do worry about people who have decided how they will vote without seeing what they are voting for.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    ballysmate wrote:
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.
    That is 100% the end goal.
    Ask anyone outside of the UK. Do some research.
    A Federal State of Europe is the intention.
    Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves.

    Whether you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing, should decide your vote.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    Unrealistic 'OUT' rhetoric -
    It is all about a United States of Europe.
    We will still have free trade.
    We can do what we want with our military.
    All amalgamations fail.

    Realistic positions:
    A single government is many years off, even if everyone supports it. We can always consider leaving later if they try and remove the UK government. Integration between the states can help with business and work. (Products work the same in all countries, qualifications have the same meaning whichever country they are obtained in etc)
    We will remain a close trading partner with Europe, as they are our nearest neighbours, but there will probably be additional disincentives for international companies to base themselves here. Over future years the freedom of trade will change with european politics, which we are no longer part of if we leave.
    Our military relies heavily on allies anyway. The last major defence of the realm was the Falklands war. We are no longer the influence we once were on the world stage, and we have too small a population to remain forever a dominant force, and will gradually wane.
    The USA is an amalgamation of states with different populations. It is dysfunctional at times, but is widely regarded as a world leader in many fields.

    Positives from remaining a member of EU:
    Definitely remain a part of a free market with our largest trading partners.
    Continue to have votes to influence EU policy
    Have the ability to veto some EU policy we disagree with.
    Remain a part of a large group of influential countries.
    Freedom of individuals to work and live wherever they like within Europe Union.
    Freedom of employers to select the best qualified candidates from throughout the European Union

    Negatives from remaining a member of EU:
    Burden of costs for the running of government and elections.
    Being part of a democratic group, which may not do what you want
    Possible loss of individual influence.
    Free movement of individuals means you can't reject people you don't like for whatever reason.

    Positives from leaving EU:
    Don't have to pay taxes to EU
    Don't have to abide by EU regulations and laws.
    Ability to prevent migration of unwanted individuals

    Negatives from leaving EU:
    No control on how EU treats the UK
    Possible deter investment in Britain as it is no longer a 'gateway to europe'
    Loss of influence over the world as a small individual state as countries with larger populations that ours modernise.
    Possibly viewed by others as less of an open and welcoming country.
    Visas (probably waived for holidays) have to be considered to visit and work in Europe.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    taon24 wrote:
    Unrealistic 'OUT' rhetoric -
    It is all about a United States of Europe.
    We will still have free trade.
    We can do what we want with our military.
    All amalgamations fail.

    Realistic positions:
    A single government is many years off, even if everyone supports it. We can always consider leaving later if they try and remove the UK government. Integration between the states can help with business and work. (Products work the same in all countries, qualifications have the same meaning whichever country they are obtained in etc)
    We will remain a close trading partner with Europe, as they are our nearest neighbours, but there will probably be additional disincentives for international companies to base themselves here. Over future years the freedom of trade will change with european politics, which we are no longer part of if we leave.
    Our military relies heavily on allies anyway. The last major defence of the realm was the Falklands war. We are no longer the influence we once were on the world stage, and we have too small a population to remain forever a dominant force, and will gradually wane.
    The USA is an amalgamation of states with different populations. It is dysfunctional at times, but is widely regarded as a world leader in many fields.

    Positives from remaining a member of EU:
    Definitely remain a part of a free market with our largest trading partners.
    Continue to have votes to influence EU policy
    Have the ability to veto some EU policy we disagree with.
    Remain a part of a large group of influential countries.
    Freedom of individuals to work and live wherever they like within Europe Union.
    Freedom of employers to select the best qualified candidates from throughout the European Union

    Negatives from remaining a member of EU:
    Burden of costs for the running of government and elections.
    Being part of a democratic group, which may not do what you want
    Possible loss of individual influence.
    Free movement of individuals means you can't reject people you don't like for whatever reason.

    Positives from leaving EU:
    Don't have to pay taxes to EU
    Don't have to abide by EU regulations and laws.
    Ability to prevent migration of unwanted individuals

    Negatives from leaving EU:
    No control on how EU treats the UK
    Possible deter investment in Britain as it is no longer a 'gateway to europe'
    Loss of influence over the world as a small individual state as countries with larger populations that ours modernise.
    Possibly viewed by others as less of an open and welcoming country.
    Visas (probably waived for holidays) have to be considered to visit and work in Europe.

    Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that that is always to be the case?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    taon24 wrote:
    Unrealistic 'OUT' rhetoric -
    It is all about a United States of Europe.
    We will still have free trade.
    We can do what we want with our military.
    All amalgamations fail.
    Why are these unrealistic?
    Are they really simply rhetoric?

    I could post pages of evidence but you would simply disagree so I will not bother.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,858 Lives Here
    ballysmate wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    Unrealistic 'OUT' rhetoric -
    It is all about a United States of Europe.
    We will still have free trade.
    We can do what we want with our military.
    All amalgamations fail.

    Realistic positions:
    A single government is many years off, even if everyone supports it. We can always consider leaving later if they try and remove the UK government. Integration between the states can help with business and work. (Products work the same in all countries, qualifications have the same meaning whichever country they are obtained in etc)
    We will remain a close trading partner with Europe, as they are our nearest neighbours, but there will probably be additional disincentives for international companies to base themselves here. Over future years the freedom of trade will change with european politics, which we are no longer part of if we leave.
    Our military relies heavily on allies anyway. The last major defence of the realm was the Falklands war. We are no longer the influence we once were on the world stage, and we have too small a population to remain forever a dominant force, and will gradually wane.
    The USA is an amalgamation of states with different populations. It is dysfunctional at times, but is widely regarded as a world leader in many fields.

    Positives from remaining a member of EU:
    Definitely remain a part of a free market with our largest trading partners.
    Continue to have votes to influence EU policy
    Have the ability to veto some EU policy we disagree with.
    Remain a part of a large group of influential countries.
    Freedom of individuals to work and live wherever they like within Europe Union.
    Freedom of employers to select the best qualified candidates from throughout the European Union

    Negatives from remaining a member of EU:
    Burden of costs for the running of government and elections.
    Being part of a democratic group, which may not do what you want
    Possible loss of individual influence.
    Free movement of individuals means you can't reject people you don't like for whatever reason.

    Positives from leaving EU:
    Don't have to pay taxes to EU
    Don't have to abide by EU regulations and laws.
    Ability to prevent migration of unwanted individuals

    Negatives from leaving EU:
    No control on how EU treats the UK
    Possible deter investment in Britain as it is no longer a 'gateway to europe'
    Loss of influence over the world as a small individual state as countries with larger populations that ours modernise.
    Possibly viewed by others as less of an open and welcoming country.
    Visas (probably waived for holidays) have to be considered to visit and work in Europe.

    Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that that is always to be the case?

    In the voting rules. Go check 'em out.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    ballysmate wrote:
    Until the terms of our continued membership are set out, I still can't say with certainty which way I will vote.
    I do worry about people who have decided how they will vote without seeing what they are voting for.

    Well obviously we dont know the exact details, but it is an IN or OUT vote isnt?

    I ll be voting IN, defence, environment, trade, travel.... i dont see what there isnt to like about europe, they have great transport links, excellent health care and education systems, less inequality and in the 70s and 80s supported their industries, so companies like Fiat, Peugoet Ferrari Pinarello, Colnago etc (not too mention that germany is now a world leading industrial power) are all still trading, unlike our industries, which were allowed to go to the wall, for short term gain, even the once great Raleigh is no more, or rather is now just an american owned badge, we are just a service based economy.
    even their drivers are nicer to cyclists :D , governments truly support alternative travel and when rail links or roads need to be built, they get on with it, instead of a 25yr delay which we seem to be keen on.

    We could learn a lot from the europeans but many seem to want us to become a mini state of the USA.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    ballysmate wrote:
    taon24 wrote:



    Have the ability to veto some EU policy we disagree with.

    Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that that is always to be the case?

    In the voting rules. Go check 'em out.

    The referendum will be about our continued membership. yes we still maintain some veto, but for how long? As a result of Lisbon,The UK is now unable to use its veto to block future changes in an increasing number of areas, potentially even those in which it had negotiated an opt-out. Particularly as the EU has grown in size, I can see how members holding a veto can be a nightmare for any administration and the EU hates it. I know this is an old article but it best demonstrates the EU's view of any veto and it contains direct quotes.
    "Unfortunately the veto still applies to a large number of areas, including taxation,"
    "A right of veto as a means of decision-making means no decisions at all. The right of veto spells deadlock for the Union,"
    Romano Prodi when EC President.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

    As I say, I have sympathy with his position, it is difficult to do business when members hold a veto. For that reason, I would expect veto powers to further diminish.


    We have been down the Common Market/EEC/EU referendum before. People were asked to vote on a model that turned out to bear no relation to what came to be. Before I vote IN, I want to know the limits to integration and devolvement of authority.
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 3,954
    As a test of your logic and debating skills Ballysmate why don't you present the valid arguments you can see for staying IN? It does seem like you're purely arguing against staying in by the way you are tearing apart the arguments presented. I personally have not been convinced by your arguments to leave the EU but I would be curious if you had any arguments that make sense to you to stay in.

    I am not having a go at your stance or you personally with this inquiry, but since at one point you said you were undecided (later on you said you were leaning towards out) I wonder if you have looked as hard at arguments for both staying in and leaving? What is your summary of arguments for both sides?
  • BelgianBeerGeekBelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,230
    mamba80 wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    Until the terms of our continued membership are set out, I still can't say with certainty which way I will vote.
    I do worry about people who have decided how they will vote without seeing what they are voting for.

    Well obviously we dont know the exact details, but it is an IN or OUT vote isnt?

    I ll be voting IN, defence, environment, trade, travel.... i dont see what there isnt to like about europe, they have great transport links, excellent health care and education systems, less inequality and in the 70s and 80s supported their industries, so companies like Fiat, Peugoet Ferrari Pinarello, Colnago etc (not too mention that germany is now a world leading industrial power) are all still trading, unlike our industries, which were allowed to go to the wall, for short term gain, even the once great Raleigh is no more, or rather is now just an american owned badge, we are just a service based economy.
    even their drivers are nicer to cyclists :D , governments truly support alternative travel and when rail links or roads need to be built, they get on with it, instead of a 25yr delay which we seem to be keen on.

    We could learn a lot from the europeans but many seem to want us to become a mini state of the USA.
    I'm with mamba80. Lets get in properly. If most rules are made in Europe, we can cull a few of our politicians (I'd start with the house of Lords). We could start to shape the EU better, and I think we would have more allies in this than many think.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,858 Lives Here
    ballysmate wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    taon24 wrote:



    Have the ability to veto some EU policy we disagree with.

    Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that that is always to be the case?

    In the voting rules. Go check 'em out.

    The referendum will be about our continued membership. yes we still maintain some veto, but for how long? As a result of Lisbon,The UK is now unable to use its veto to block future changes in an increasing number of areas, potentially even those in which it had negotiated an opt-out. Particularly as the EU has grown in size, I can see how members holding a veto can be a nightmare for any administration and the EU hates it. I know this is an old article but it best demonstrates the EU's view of any veto and it contains direct quotes.
    "Unfortunately the veto still applies to a large number of areas, including taxation,"
    "A right of veto as a means of decision-making means no decisions at all. The right of veto spells deadlock for the Union,"
    Romano Prodi when EC President.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

    As I say, I have sympathy with his position, it is difficult to do business when members hold a veto. For that reason, I would expect veto powers to further diminish.


    We have been down the Common Market/EEC/EU referendum before. People were asked to vote on a model that turned out to bear no relation to what came to be. Before I vote IN, I want to know the limits to integration and devolvement of authority.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_ ... _of_Lisbon

    Certain policy fields remain subject to unanimity in whole or in part, such as:
    membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.); change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[25]

    taxation;
    the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);
    harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
    certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);
    the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;
    the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;
    the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
    citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);
    certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    As a test of your logic and debating skills Ballysmate why don't you present the valid arguments you can see for staying IN? It does seem like you're purely arguing against staying in by the way you are tearing apart the arguments presented. I personally have not been convinced by your arguments to leave the EU but I would be curious if you had any arguments that make sense to you to stay in.

    I am not having a go at your stance or you personally with this inquiry, but since at one point you said you were undecided (later on you said you were leaning towards out) I wonder if you have looked as hard at arguments for both staying in and leaving? What is your summary of arguments for both sides?

    You are correct in pointing out that I have stated that I am undecided but leaning towards out. I also stated
    If the referendum was held today and the terms were that we had reached the limit to our integration, reaching a line in the sand, I would probably vote to stay in. But the fear is, until any terms are published, there will be further moves towards a goal of US of Europe, however many years away, and that is not for me.

    This shows that I am truly still on the fence.
    I have not put forward any case for IN or OUT. I haven't been trying to persuade anyone either way as I haven't quite made my mind up. It is true that I have attacked arguments put forward for staying in to test their resilience and I have to say, I have found the arguments less than compelling. If someone posts arguments in favour of our withdrawal, I would test them with the same rigor.

    If we stay in, we are guaranteed free access and movement of labour and goods. This is undoubtedly good for business. The EU immigration is not a problem for me at all.
    If we leave, prima facie, we would enjoy tariff free trade with the EU, but for how long? Circumstances can change. If we are outside the EU and Euro, would we suffer? I don't know. Hopefully this will be made clear before the big day. Would our continued membership mean adopting the Euro?
    European military force? In principle it makes sense to share military capabilities, to keep costs under control and to prevent duplication. But we already have an alliance in NATO and any alliance without the US would be a paper tiger.
    EU foreign policy? Yes a united front from a larger more powerful trading bloc would carry more weight on the world stage, certainly. But that policy would not always be in our interest. That may sound selfish to our European partners, but that's my view. I also accept the UK is a diminishing power on the world stage and I am quite content for the EU to join the US in playing world policeman, if that's their wish. It's time we accepted our diminishing role.
    Both unified military and unified foreign policy requires political union, which I find objectionable. People, mostly on the left of politics point to the disparity between rich and poor areas of the UK, but this is nothing compared to the disparity within the EU. How can any budget/policy be equally valid in Romania/Greece/Germany/UK for instance. I am happier to address the disparity in my own back yard before tackling the same in the EU.
    So even if we come out, we can continue in the only meaningful military alliance and also continue to shape foreign policy for our own ends. My only concern would be any loss of trade.
    Free market/ free movement, by all means. Political union - NO. Rightly or wrongly I would view the EU politicians even further removed and less accountable than the ones we have now at Westminster.

    As I said, if the terms of our membership are to be set as they stand now, I would probably vote to stay in. Any move towards a federal state or political union and it is a NO from me.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    “Norway is the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget – despite not being a member – and it took Switzerland nine years to negotiate and implement partial access to the single market.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/nil ... eformed-eu

    This may give food for thought. The circumstances around Norway's contribution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2% ... _relations

    As I've said, we need to be told any costs in £ s. d. Or at least in £ and p.
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    Interestingly I find myself agreeing with more of Ballysmate's considerations than I thought.
    However I do not believe that I am voting for an irretrievable union. Much like the SNP view of the Scots in the latest referendum, if there was a significant change (especially significant changes to political, monetary or military) I would want the relationship to be relooked at, and a further referendum at least considered by the politicians. I am just voting to maintain the status quo for the forseeable future.

    I think it is difficult to predict how you will be treated in future if you leave. That is the biggest disadvantage - the unknown. I don't see why it will be necessarily be favourable, if you reject other members of your community you might expect some bad feelings.
    I don't think the vote is in favour of joining the euro - I'd hope for a further referendum.
    Militarily we are already enmeshed in a complex alliance with a high degree of interdependence of our armed forces. I'm not sure a vote either way changes that.
    I agree that foreign policy of the EU may not always be in the best interest of the UK, but that is the situation at the moment, and I don't see it suddenly improving greatly if we leave.

    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    taon24 wrote:
    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the bit in bold above is not true.
    The EU in 10 years will be very different to the EU today in my opinion.
    It is only an opinion, but it is all I have to go on without firm, and fixed agreements. Which we won't get.

    We are voting in a leap of faith, either way.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,858 Lives Here
    pblakeney wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the bit in bold above is not true.
    The EU in 10 years will be very different to the EU today in my opinion.
    It is only an opinion, but it is all I have to go on without firm, and fixed agreements. Which we won't get.

    We are voting in a leap of faith, either way.

    The world's gonna be different in 10 years?

    No sh!t sherlock.
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 3,954
    There's already an EU rapid reaction force which heavily relies on UK forces due to their capabilities. This is kind of confuses command structures between this and NATO I think but I'm sure brighter minds than mine have solved that.
    I always thought UK armed forces have for a long time been shifting to a complimentary capability to USA forces. We rely on US forces and to some extent they rely on our capability. I heard our special forces, intelligence services and GCHQ. are very valuable to USA, NATO and EU forces. It is one reason why the UK is taking a lead in the rapid reaction force.

    The other thing about defence is UK has the 5th largest expenditure on defence in 2014 and 2013. Although one set of figures state we are 6th behind France. This alone means we are still significant militarily. Projections for 30 years still keeps us in 6th place. Not a big decline, but obviously that's crystal ball stuff.

    I'd expect any major change to the EU will now end up with a referendum. Probably the same with other countries. I think the UK is getting comfortable with referenda as are the politicians. Just a feeling I have.
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    pblakeney wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the bit in bold above is not true.
    The EU in 10 years will be very different to the EU today in my opinion.
    It is only an opinion, but it is all I have to go on without firm, and fixed agreements. Which we won't get.

    We are voting in a leap of faith, either way.

    If I vote to stay in I am only voting to maintain our membership of the European Union, and for politicians to take reasonable, measured steps to continue the relationship, which we are already in. Hence maintaining the status quo.
    It is not valid to suggest that voting to maintain the status quo is a 'leap of faith' on the basis of an acknowledged belief. This is misleading as it suggests that a vote for continued EU membership is actually something more, which is not true.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    pblakeney wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the bit in bold above is not true.
    The EU in 10 years will be very different to the EU today in my opinion.
    It is only an opinion, but it is all I have to go on without firm, and fixed agreements. Which we won't get.

    We are voting in a leap of faith, either way.

    The world's gonna be different in 10 years?

    No sh!t sherlock.

    I see Rick is again demonstrating his capacity for evaluating information and posting something so profound that we mere mortals are awestruck by his towering intellect. :roll:
Sign In or Register to comment.