The EU Referendum

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

He had an electoral mandate to do so...whatever your politics.

No one man him put it in his manifesto!

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Which of course we will match. As we buy far more from you that means we will make lots of money on the tariffs. Lets start with say cars, Lets put another 25 % on Mercedes and BMW's.

Yes, that could be the way we are going. I'm afraid there are rather more important issues here than whether the EU needs the UK more than UK needs the EU.

 

[Pubey]

Have you got some evidence of this? Everyone knows that you vote for your MEP.

Google 'Farage unelected bureaucrats' and fill your boots.

The leave campaign made a huge noise about how the European Commission initiates policies and laws and that they aren't elected, but disregarded the whole process involving both the European Commission and the elected European Parliament and the fact that a majority of member states also need to approve it.

From my non-expert understanding, it's pretty similar to how laws are created in this country - civil servants will draft them, the commons passes them, the lords has to approve them too.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

If someone from the Remain camp wins the Tory leadership, could they in theory strike a deal with the EU which gives us full access to the single market in exchange for full freedom of movement and the UK agreeing to abide by all EU laws, meaning that nothing changes except the UK losing it's voice within the EU?

Yes but it's even worse than that. No preliminary discussions means that someone would have to press the 'invoke article 50' to start the negociations. From what I understand, the UK would then dance to the EU's tune and would be in a poor negotiating position. It's why leave supporters want preliminary talks, hoping to get a more favourable deal sketched out. At the moment the European member states are puting up a united front, even though at the start Germany wished to be more conciliatory, concerning the the UK's departure. The main hope for the leave side is that this unity will crumble under pressure...........we shall see. For the moment the possibility is exactly as you explained it.............we could end up in a worse position regarding the EU than we find ourselves at the moment.

 

[Gremlin]

Google 'Farage unelected bureaucrats' and fill your boots.

The leave campaign made a huge noise about how the European Commission initiates policies and laws and that they aren't elected, but disregarded the whole process involving both the European Commission and the elected European Parliament and the fact that a majority of member states also need to approve it.

So it looks like we're agreed that the Leave campaign didn't actually mention MEPs and we both know that MEPs are elected by the people. Any chance that you thought you heard something in the "huge noise" that wasn't really there?

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

He had an electoral mandate to do so...whatever your politics.

NO, I'm going back to his original decision to offer a referendum and we all know why he did it ..........and it wasn't for the sake of democracy. The dodgy chancer put personal and party considerations over the those of the country. It is all his fault.

 

[londonblue]

NO, I'm going back to his original decision to offer a referendum and we all know why he did it ..........and it wasn't for the sake of democracy. The dodgy chancer put personal and party considerations over the those of the country. It is all his fault.

Which comes back to my question. How many people who voted tory at the last GE and voted to remain now wish they had voted Labour since Millibland ruled out a referendum?

For them it comes down to the lesser of two evils. The only person who has answered my question was a died in the wool tory, and he (without hesitation) said he now wishes he had voted Labour.

 

[callan]

If someone from the Remain camp wins the Tory leadership, could they in theory strike a deal with the EU which gives us full access to the single market in exchange for full freedom of movement and the UK agreeing to abide by all EU laws, meaning that nothing changes except the UK losing it's voice within the EU?

There is one small thing overlooked on this scenario....which is that we would be free to form our own trade deals outside of the EU, rather than wait for the EU to do it on our behalf.

This of course is only one of several options available to us....but if we were to adopt a membership similar to Norway as described in your post (why would we?), then your post does summarise things fairly accurately.

 

[callan]

NO, I'm going back to his original decision to offer a referendum and we all know why he did it ..........and it wasn't for the sake of democracy. The dodgy chancer put personal and party considerations over the those of the country. It is all his fault.

Whatever his reasoning under our electoral system he had a mandate to do it.

 

[Napster]

There is one small thing overlooked on this scenario....which is that we would be free to form our own trade deals outside of the EU, rather than wait for the EU to do it on our behalf..

The issue here is threefold:

We don't have anyone who is an expert in negotiating inter-country trade deals - we haven't since we joined the EU.
We don't have the purchasing power of the EU, so our negotiating stance is inherently weaker
It will be incredibly complex to negotiate with single countries one at a time - the time and effort expended can be spent elsewhere, like the NHS

 

[Supernaut]

This of course is only one of several options available to us....but if we were to adopt a membership similar to Norway as described in your post (why would we?)

I was simply wondering out loud if a new pro-EU Tory leader could effectively head to Brussels in October and keep us in the EU via such back door antics, rather than resorting to anything more drastic. Could have some bearing on the Tory leadership race I guess.

 

[rigsby]

NO, I'm going back to his original decision to offer a referendum and we all know why he did it ..........and it wasn't for the sake of democracy. The dodgy chancer put personal and party considerations over the those of the country. It is all his fault.

The majority want out so Cameron was right to offer a referendum. Or does democracy only count if the result suites you personally.

 

[callan]

The issue here is threefold:

We don't have anyone who is an expert in negotiating inter-country trade deals - we haven't since we joined the EU.
We don't have the purchasing power of the EU, so our negotiating stance is inherently weaker
It will be incredibly complex to negotiate with single countries one at a time - the time and effort expended can be spent elsewhere, like the NHS

Firstly I would say that the purchasing power of many whilst at face value looks lucrative, it also comes encumbered by getting all the member states to agree, if indeed it was as simplistic as you put then there should be many questions asked as to why the EU has experienced low growth compared to those not in it.

Secondly it will depend upon the desire of other economies not just inside the EU but outside to want their business to have trade deals with the UK, the indications so far are that India, Australia and New Zealand have all expressed such interest....as the below links show.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...-urgent-review-of-brexit-implications/7546890

http://indianexpress.com/article/bu...uk-trade-pact-likely-to-get-a-fillip-2874225/

In addition how do other countries perform, in terms of securing trade deals whilst not having the 'purchasing power' of the EU....I suggest you compare someone like Chile's ability to secure trade deals vs EU.

I don't doubt for one moment that we also have the expertise to negotiate deals in an inter country basis.

 

[Napster]

..I suggest you compare someone like Chile's ability to secure trade deals vs EU..

Ok, Chile's trade deal with the US took 12 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile–United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

[callan]

I was simply wondering out loud if a new pro-EU Tory leader could effectively head to Brussels in October and keep us in the EU via such back door antics, rather than resorting to anything more drastic. Could have some bearing on the Tory leadership race I guess.

I think it is important to recognise that whilst IN represented the same to all, OUT had/has many different faces.

How much of a stitch up OUT could be is only for speculation, but rule it out at your peril!

 

[Napster]

Oh and NZ is still pending one with the US that has been in traction since 2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand–United_States_relations#Proposed_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

[londonblue]

The majority want out so Cameron was right to offer a referendum. Or does democracy only count if the result suites you personally.

This majority you talk about. You realise only 37.5% actually voted for it? That's actually just over 1/3.

Yes, I understand that it was a slim majority of people that actually voted (and more fool those that didn't if they're now upset), but let's not keep calling it something that it isn't.

 

[Napster]

Firstly I would say that the purchasing power of many whilst at face value looks lucrative, it also comes encumbered by getting all the member states to agree, if indeed it was as simplistic as you put then there should be many questions asked as to why the EU has experienced low growth compared to those not in it.

Secondly it will depend upon the desire of other economies not just inside the EU but outside to want their business to have trade deals with the UK, the indications so far are that India, Australia and New Zealand have all expressed such interest....as the below links show.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...-urgent-review-of-brexit-implications/7546890

http://indianexpress.com/article/bu...uk-trade-pact-likely-to-get-a-fillip-2874225/

In addition how do other countries perform, in terms of securing trade deals whilst not having the 'purchasing power' of the EU....I suggest you compare someone like Chile's ability to secure trade deals vs EU.

I don't doubt for one moment that we also have the expertise to negotiate deals in an inter country basis.

India, Australia have the benefit of being a) Commonwealth countries and b) English-speaking. What about China, S.Korea, the Middle East? We have no history with them, and to them we are small players (except in defence and finance, maybe)

 

[callan]

Ok, Chile's trade deal with the US took 12 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile–United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement

Perhaps, you need to re read your own link?

 

[Napster]

Perhaps, you need to re read your own link?

The United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement is a free trade agreement between the United States and Chile signed on June 6, 2003.

The first steps toward a trade agreement between the two countries began in 1992


EDIT: sorry, 11 years.