BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

mr_goo

We have been promised an In/Out referendum by Rt Hon David CaMoron. He is waiting until the latter part of 2017 when the UK has the presidency of the EU, and his belief that it will give him some sort of leverage to renegotiate the UK's membership.
Listening to the interview of the ex-president of the EU Commission Romano Prodi (Italy) on Radio 5Live yesterday, should be a warning to us in the UK and those citizens of other member states.
He stated that CaMoron has little or no chance of changing the terms of membership. In fact the EU is dancing to the tune of the Germans and needs to become more federal, which require political union. All member states to use a common EU foreign policy and to dispense with their own armed forces as the EU will have it's own. I think he alluded to the fact that the EU needs to become a super power in order to survive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rc7sn

So if it's a choice of becoming part of a pseudo Union of the Soviet European Republics, the erosion of democracy, the inability of a country to determine it's own future and the loss of our own armed forces, for me it will be OUT.

And your views are?

norvernrob

We either won't get one full stop, or it will be when there's pretty much zero chance of an 'out' vote.

The vast majority of the British public would be happy to stay in the EU if the government stopped giving money away to anyone that gets off the ferry. That's it in a nutshell.

sungod

so if it's a choice of becoming part of a pseudo Union of the Soviet European Republics, the erosion of democracy, the inability of a country to determine it's own future and the loss of our own armed forces, for me it will be OUT.

that's simply untrue

existing treaties do not bind member states to any such thing and all states can simply refuse to participate - as the uk and a few others did with the euro

the federalists are just one faction, if some subset of eu countries want to share more amongst themselves it's up to them, others can ignore it

the rundown of uk armed forces so far is entirely at the hands of the uk government, nothing to do with a federalist eu

mr_goo

NorvernRob wrote:

We either won't get one full stop, or it will be when there's pretty much zero chance of an 'out' vote.

The vast majority of the British public would be happy to stay in the EU if the government stopped giving money away to anyone that gets off the ferry. That's it in a nutshell.

I don't think we will get a referendum. CaMoron isn't going to be able to take any powers back. Nor is he going to be able to throw out the EU human rights act or immigration policies both from within the EU and from without. Not speaking as an advocate of UKIP, but the EEC/EU experiment has gone too far.

My wife works in the NHS and sees the impact European immigration has had on the health service. One can argue that it works both ways. But are there that many people leaving the UK to take up residency in Slovakia/Slovenia et all and causing an overwhelming burden on their infrastructure?

mr_goo

sungod wrote:

so if it's a choice of becoming part of a pseudo Union of the Soviet European Republics, the erosion of democracy, the inability of a country to determine it's own future and the loss of our own armed forces, for me it will be OUT.

that's simply untrue

existing treaties do not bind member states to any such thing and all states can simply refuse to participate - as the uk and a few others did with the euro

the federalists are just one faction, if some subset of eu countries want to share more amongst themselves it's up to them, others can ignore it

the rundown of uk armed forces so far is entirely at the hands of the uk government, nothing to do with a federalist eu

Your valued views on the Greek situation.

In respect of the Armed Forces, I was not referring to the run down of ours. I was stating that Romano Prodi thinks that Europe should have its own rather than individual states.

slowmart

We will get the referendum and is more likely sooner rather than later.

As most elected parties dip in their popularity mid term Cameron needs to keep the momentum from the general election and his party united.

Bring in Scotland and defence into view and the trigger points for conflict and dissent will only grow overtime and with a smaller majority than the Major government this will take some light and quick footwork and a effective and fearsome whips office to keep dissenters inline and onboard.

Pre positioning talks have already started and at this juncture the tone is the most important aspect but Cameron isn't leader by birth, he's a able and capable politician and one of the best of his generation and you'll wait a long time for a sitting government to increase their electoral success.


My monies on May 2016.....

Lookyhere

As i understand it, Cameron has said should he not get the treaty changes he wants, then we ll all have a vote?

so i expect a smiling Neville Cameron to step off the plane from Munich, waving his piece of paper, shouting "treaty changes in our time" and they ll be no vote (having secured absolutely nothing)

Personally, i think europe is a good thing. the world faces great changes, eg climate, a dominant Russia and migration and we ll be best placed to deal with these as one, rather than separate states, ok the EU is not handling some of these well now but that will change.

Smokin Joe

Neither Cameron or any of the other party leaders, with the exception of Nigel Farage, have any intention of leaving the EU. The referendum will be to pull the rug from under the feet of both UKIP and his own back benchers and to call the bluff of the high percentage of the public who tell polsters they want out. He will negotiate a few concessions from Europe and come back strongly recommending we stay in. He will be backed fully by Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, all the major business organisations and most of the media. Having been warned about millions of jobs going by everyone who matters the voting public (Who mostly aren't doing too badly after all, thank you very much) will overwhelmingly elect to stay put. The last referendum in '75 voted for Common Market membership by 2/1. That was when we had only just joined and pulling out would have had no impact. I predict a split of at least 3/1 this time round.

VTech

Smokin Joe wrote:

Neither Cameron or any of the other party leaders, with the exception of Nigel Farage, have any intention of leaving the EU. The referendum will be to pull the rug from under the feet of both UKIP and his own back benchers and to call the bluff of the high percentage of the public who tell polsters they want out. He will negotiate a few concessions from Europe and come back strongly recommending we stay in. He will be backed fully by Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, all the major business organisations and most of the media. Having been warned about millions of jobs going by everyone who matters the voting public (Who mostly aren't doing too badly after all, thank you very much) will overwhelmingly elect to stay put. The last referendum in '75 voted for Common Market membership by 2/1. That was when we had only just joined and pulling out would have had no impact. I predict a split of at least 3/1 this time round.

I think thats the story the world over.
The average man doesnt have the knowledge to really make certain choices on such a level although we all have an opinion.
I think for the huge majority, the people who do make the choices "allow" the average man the ability to vote on matters when reality is that the choice isn't their and that the result is a known fact prior to a ballot paper even being printed.

sloppyschleckonds

NorvernRob wrote:

We either won't get one full stop, or it will be when there's pretty much zero chance of an 'out' vote.

The vast majority of the British public would be happy to stay in the EU if the government stopped giving money away to anyone that gets off the ferry. That's it in a nutshell.

This

orraloon

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

We either won't get one full stop, or it will be when there's pretty much zero chance of an 'out' vote.

The vast majority of the British public would be happy to stay in the EU if the government stopped giving money away to anyone that gets off the ferry. That's it in a nutshell.

This

"Europe" is not forcing the UK to hand out welfare to individuals who have not contributed to the pot, that is entirely down to the UK system. Could stop that tomorrow if the will was there. No need for renegotiation or referenda for that.

What may be challenged by EU is a UK system differentiating between UK born and non-UK EU born recipients.

Which takes us back to the reform of the welfare system jungle of an issue. How much and to whom should the UK taxpayer give financial benefit support?

BelgianBeerGeek

I think I have said elsewhere that the Tories will tear themselves apart over this. my prediction is that Cameron will appear to be tough on this, and bluff the electorate. However, he will not be tough enough for his own party. I doubt you will see Dave nail his colours to the mast, and as usual he will vacillate too long, seeing which way the wind blows. No politician would willingly enter into a refendum they might "lose". But he will, and pretty much regardless of the outcome, Boris and the rest of his chums will have the knives out. They all know this is a poisonous topic for the Conservatives, and it will be Dave C who ends up with the daggers in his back. He is either a naive idiot badly informed by his policy wonks, or he has done a deal to take the hit, resign and move over for another person. He has already said he is not doing a third term. Lord Cameron of Newquay sounds good, doesn't it?
Don't believe the UK voters would vote to stay in the EU. After all, everything is the fault of foreigners, right?

verylonglegs

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Don't believe the UK voters would vote to stay in the EU. After all, everything is the fault of foreigners, right?

I don't think so, I would suggest it's similar to the Scottish referendum and the General Election in so far that it's those who want change that make the most noise...therefore the polls and journalists thought it would be a close call but were wrong in the end because a lot of people who were happy with things as they are simply kept their heads down, went about their business and voted accordingly.

taon24

Let us clear up some (misinformation) -
You can elect an MEP, they act as half of the legislature in europe (European parliament), if they go at all.
You also contribute to the election of the house of commons. MPs elect a government who represent you in the Council of Europe (the other half of policy approving body).
You don't elect a European Commissioner, but then you don't elect a prime minister either, you simply elect individuals (MPs / MEPs) who vote for or against a government being formed.
Much like Scotland is 1/10th of the UK, the UK is approximately 1/10 of Europe (by european parliament and population size, and 1 of 28 member states) and therefore if we want something different from the rest of Europe we are voted down, which is close to the definition of democracy.

There has been no move to leave the (separate from the EU) council of europe and therefore independent of the separate human right law change there has been no move to repeal the 'EU human rights act'

The biggest fears about immigration interestingly occur in areas of lowest immigration in the UK. True immigrants are less likely to fear mass immigration, but equally those who live nearest to large migrant communities seem less concerned about the effects.

There is good data to suggest that they are a net benefit to the economy, and while you'll probably get some 'bad' immigrants, there are more than enough bad british people both at home and as 'ex-pats', however it is much easier to relate to individuals than a group as a whole (cognitive bias)
While there is some abuse of the benefits system, the data suggests that they are a net contributor to the country, but this impression can be influenced by cognitive bias)
The NHS I work in relied locally on large numbers of Portuguese nurses to have adequate staffing, and while I'm sure money is spent treating immigrant patients, some will have paid tax and others will be family members of those paying tax. I'm appalled by people in the 'civilised' USA not receiving treatment because they cannot afford it. There is a balance with regard to accepting an economic burden from becoming the worlds hospital, but I hope we never turn away anyone with a life threatening emergency.

ballysmate

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Don't believe the UK voters would vote to stay in the EU. After all, everything is the fault of foreigners, right?

That is not what the issue is about.
Taon lays out the structure of the EC in his post above and shows the mechanism by which the EU Commission is held accountable.
I elect a national government on the basis of national self interest and as such I expect them to act in that manner. MEPs are obliged to act in a manner beneficial to the whole EU, regardless of their origins. My fear is that there seems only one direction of travel which is further integration leading to political and economic union. I have to say that I don't want that. If that marks me out as being a Little Englander/ Xenophobe in some eyes, then so be it.
EU Immigration is not necessarily a problem, as long as we have people coming here to work and pay tax. If UK unemployed won't compete in the jobs market, that says more about them than the immigrants. The problem is the control we have ceded to the EU.
There is talk of a joint EU foreign policy, but again I doubt that our interests would always coincide with the other 27 (For now) states.
Same with defence. NATO has served us well for decades, so I would prefer to remain as part of an alliance, but keep our right to act unilaterally in our own self interest as we see fit.
The most recent referendum was the Scots, who wanted to go the other way, ie separate rather than amalgamate. I thought their best interests lay in staying as part of the UK, BUT I fully understood why some wanted to leave. They thought they were not being represented in the UK Government.
As Taon points out, we would still elect MEPs etc but as the Commission operates with a member from each state, our influence would be 1/28. I know the commission is supposed not to act in national interest, but I am too much of a cynic to believe that is 100% always going to be the case. Do we want to have nominally 100% say in our affairs or trade it for 10%?
At the moment, there seems to be a chasm between the Northern members and the Mediterranean states. Likewise there is a great divide socially and economically regarding the new East European states. Germany is haemorrhaging money to keep the whole thing afloat, whilst Greece and others show reluctance to mend their free spending ways. Do we want to help to bail them out?
As regards Greece, it is apparent that they didn't meet the criteria to join the Euro.Either people turned a blind eye or they were not diligent, in neither case did the EU cover itself in glory.
The fact is rightly or wrongly the EU is regarded with suspicion for being adept at fudging issues to get the results it wants.
PS If we vote OUT, do we have to keep voting until we return the correct result like the Irish had to?

ilm_zero7

if we get a chance - I'm voting OUT - NZ and Aus seem to be doing pretty well without a paranoia about european trade

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Same with defence. NATO has served us well for decades, so I would prefer to remain as part of an alliance, but keep our right to act unilaterally in our own self interest as we see fit.

the problem with that is the USA, who have bank rolled our defence for all those decades are no longer willing or able to do that any more, look at all the US air force bases that have closed down or the uk s lack of any form of maritime air surveillance since Nimrod went?
Europe needs to pay for its own defence now and singular states cant cut it any more, whether the EU can fill the gap is another question.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Same with defence. NATO has served us well for decades, so I would prefer to remain as part of an alliance, but keep our right to act unilaterally in our own self interest as we see fit.

the problem with that is the USA, who have bank rolled our defence for all those decades are no longer willing or able to do that any more, look at all the US air force bases that have closed down or the uk s lack of any form of maritime air surveillance since Nimrod went?
Europe needs to pay for its own defence now and singular states cant cut it any more, whether the EU can fill the gap is another question.

Can't see any of our EU partners stepping up to fill the void.
Unfashionable to say so , but we still need the umbrella that the US gives us. European defence would be a joke.

taon24

Scotland voted against leaving the UK. I suspect the result for the referendum will be the same.
I struggle to see how the situation in Scotland v the UK and the UK v EU is much different. Yet many people suggest that Scotland should definitely remain part of the UK, yet the UK definitely leave Europe.
In both cases the smaller area/population feels unrepresented and undervalued by the whole with various degrees of 'truth' in that. Similarly there are complaints about the burden of taxation on the UK, but is this any different to people in wealthy parts of the country paying more in total tax than poorer areas of the country?
In both cases you have greater influence as a part of the community than as an associate of the community. Our biggest trading partner is Europe. It is the most proximate, and therefore is likely to remain the biggest trading partner. While we are part of Europe we can influence rules on trade, outside we cannot. We might find that we do better cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world to some degree, but in the age of modern travel and the internet I'm not convinced that is the case.

ballysmate

taon24 wrote:

Scotland voted against leaving the UK. I suspect the result for the referendum will be the same.
I struggle to see how the situation in Scotland v the UK and the UK v EU is much different. Yet many people suggest that Scotland should definitely remain part of the UK, yet the UK definitely leave Europe.
In both cases the smaller area/population feels unrepresented and undervalued by the whole with various degrees of 'truth' in that. Similarly there are complaints about the burden of taxation on the UK, but is this any different to people in wealthy parts of the country paying more in total tax than poorer areas of the country?
In both cases you have greater influence as a part of the community than as an associate of the community. Our biggest trading partner is Europe. It is the most proximate, and therefore is likely to remain the biggest trading partner. While we are part of Europe we can influence rules on trade, outside we cannot. We might find that we do better cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world to some degree, but in the age of modern travel and the internet I'm not convinced that is the case.

Here is a post that I made earlier (As they used to say on Blue Peter)
No apology for repeating it as the issue keeps recurring. Perhaps someone can debunk it.

From an earlier thread.

Re: Own Goal for the Tories
Postby Ballysmate » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:37 pm

Thanks to the unrecognised but astounding work of the World Trade Organisation there really is no need for either an EU single market. Average import tariffs into the EU are 1.09 per cent for the United States – and it does not bear the cost of EU commissioners and hangers-on, bureaucrats, politicians and advisers, nor an EU parliament or an EU membership fee to gain access to what the Confederation of British Industry claims mistakenly is vital to our economic survival.

Canada, Switzerland and South Korea all have Free Trade agreements with the EU to gain access without cost to the erroneously titled “single market” and the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU duty-bound to give any country leaving – be it the UK or Scotland – the same deal.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-mont ... -1-3634328

Is withdrawal from the EU the end of the world?
People assume that out trade with them would cease, but is that really the case?



I am not a UKIP voter but the notion that withdrawal from the EU means us falling off the edge of the world perhaps needs examining.

rick_chasey

ILM Zero7 wrote:

if we get a chance - I'm voting OUT - NZ and Aus seem to be doing pretty well without a paranoia about european trade

That'll be because they're literally on the other side of the world so do a lot less trading with Europe.

The moon's doing pretty well without the earth at the moment as well, but I don't think we need to copy its policy.

ballysmate

Very profound, Rick, very profound. :roll:

tangled_metal

Someone said that Greece did not meet the Euro criteria to join when they did. I believe there was a documentary strand that looked into the 5 convergence criteria and there was not one single EU country that met all criteria to join. Wish I could cite where that came from so you could look into it but if true then it sums up the european project nicely. It is one fudge after another. I am pro-Europe in many ways but not a federal one, I would however vote to stay in.

I also saw some BBC news programme where some former EU insider said that actually Germany does want reform. Others do too. IIRC there is a feeling that UK being inside the EU is actually good for it as a modernizing influence. A lightning rod for change if you like. There could well be more than Germany supporting some of the target changes Cameron probably has. If there isn't then I still feel German support on some changes is good enough despite the voting systems. They do afterall have influence that UK do not/gave up.

debeli

I find it likely that there will be a referendum of sorts... DC has a surprise majority and this is not a matter on which he will be allowed to slip too much.

However, I hope it goes in favour of remaining within the EU.

As things stand, we trade fairly effectively with former colonies (Australia, NZ, USA, Canada). We don't do too badly in trade with the former Empire either. Trade with Europe is nice too, both EU and non-EU.

There are costs associated with membership and there are benefits.

From my perspective, the pro-Europe camp seem sanguine about the costs and realistic about the benefits. In contrast, much that I hear from the Anti-EU mob seems unrealistic about both the costs and the benefits of leaving.

Which currently untapped mines of trade opportunities with non-EU states will suddenly fall open to us?

Which nations and enterprises not currently doing business with UK parties will suddenly see the massive opportunities offered by a non-EU UK that were previously negated by our membership?

Farage, Cash and the loony anti-EU element seem to be selling a Utopian fantasy of post-EU life.... I do not overstate the benefits of membership. I am not sure it is wise to do so. They are marginal. The EU is not the panacaea for all ills, but it is preferable to the alternative.

ballysmate

Debeli wrote:

I find it likely that there will be a referendum of sorts... DC has a surprise majority and this is not a matter on which he will be allowed to slip too much.

However, I hope it goes in favour of remaining within the EU.

As things stand, we trade fairly effectively with former colonies (Australia, NZ, USA, Canada). We don't do too badly in trade with the former Empire either. Trade with Europe is nice too, both EU and non-EU.

There are costs associated with membership and there are benefits.

From my perspective, the pro-Europe camp seem sanguine about the costs and realistic about the benefits. In contrast, much that I hear from the Anti-EU mob seems unrealistic about both the costs and the benefits of leaving.

Which currently untapped mines of trade opportunities with non-EU states will suddenly fall open to us?

Which nations and enterprises not currently doing business with UK parties will suddenly see the massive opportunities offered by a non-EU UK that were previously negated by our membership?

Farage, Cash and the loony anti-EU element seem to be selling a Utopian fantasy of post-EU life.... I do not overstate the benefits of membership. I am not sure it is wise to do so. They are marginal. The EU is not the panacaea for all ills, but it is preferable to the alternative.

Some of my posts from yesterday have disappeared, so I'ii try again. :? :?


Conversely, which markets would suddenly slam their doors in our face? If the content of my earlier post is correct and the EU is bound by the Lisbon Treaty to give us a free trade agreement, what have we got to lose?

tangled_metal

AFAIK UK companies are exploiting all opportunities and benefiting from low duties into many countries around the world (WTO and lower trade duties are all over). So this means that if a BREXIT did lead to loss of market with the EU there would not be much scope to replace EU business elsewhere because that is already being exploited.

The converse argument states that a BREXIT means a free trade agreement kicks in anyway so no difference.

I think it would be interesting to find out what happens but personally I prefer being in the EU. I think there is more to it than just trade but then I think there is more to the UK too.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

AFAIK UK companies are exploiting all opportunities and benefiting from low duties into many countries around the world (WTO and lower trade duties are all over). So this means that if a BREXIT did lead to loss of market with the EU there would not be much scope to replace EU business elsewhere because that is already being exploited.

The converse argument states that a BREXIT means a free trade agreement kicks in anyway so no difference.

I think it would be interesting to find out what happens but personally I prefer being in the EU. I think there is more to it than just trade but then I think there is more to the UK too.

Yes there is more to the EU than trade, but the loss of trade is always the BIG fear that is put forward by Europhiles.
The other aspects to the EU such as common currency, defence and foreign policy - are they really in the best interests of the UK? If not in our benefit we should vote OUT. The sole issue of any referendum is whether the EU is good for us. Any benefit that our continued membership brings to the EU is irrelevant.

rick_chasey

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.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

AFAIK UK companies are exploiting all opportunities and benefiting from low duties into many countries around the world (WTO and lower trade duties are all over). So this means that if a BREXIT did lead to loss of market with the EU there would not be much scope to replace EU business elsewhere because that is already being exploited.

The converse argument states that a BREXIT means a free trade agreement kicks in anyway so no difference.

I think it would be interesting to find out what happens but personally I prefer being in the EU. I think there is more to it than just trade but then I think there is more to the UK too.

Yes there is more to the EU than trade, but the loss of trade is always the BIG fear that is put forward by Europhiles.
The other aspects to the EU such as common currency, defence and foreign policy - are they really in the best interests of the UK? If not in our benefit we should vote OUT. The sole issue of any referendum is whether the EU is good for us. Any benefit that our continued membership brings to the EU is irrelevant.

Defence - the uk has 2 new AC coming on stream, at present with no aircraft but even when they are available, the UK lacks the frigates to provide the surface anti submarine protection for the carrier, we ve 19 frigates (many in dock) the french have 30 ! europe will be providing the surface protection.
longer term, Our membership of NATO, how might that be effected?, the troops in germany, the ukraine crisis, the european response toward Russia, was an EU brokered peace deal and sanctions, what did the UK contribute? nothing, carry on buying property in london guys!!!!
Would the US continue to deal with our shrinking defence forces or a EU defence force?
Environment - many if not all the progress we ve made in beach quality is down to the EU, same with farm chemicals, we always hold out, recently with the pesticides that damage bee's.
Foreign policy - can we stop the migration from N africa on our own? would the EU be happy to see even more migrants head to our shores and how we would stop them? and if we could, what would be europes response? i doubt they d be lining up to buy any more jcb's.

there is a lot wrong with the EU but it can be fixed, marching off with our ball, wont win us friends and should it go wrong for us outside, they ll never have us back.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey 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.

BelgianBeerGeek

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey 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.