[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Budget contributions?

I'm ok with that. Fag packet calculations suggest we get more tax back due to increased European trade than the tax we spend on our club subs.
And that before we include in the slightly cheaper prices and more jobs in the country.

[b]Referendums[/b]
Voters and campaigners can decide the vote is about things other than the question.
The government then can read into the result a mandate for whatever they happen to want.

[i][i]BR - and you think the rest of the EU will stand for that? Well they might for airbus but not for other industries and even for airbus I bet the rest will just grab that wing building contract.[/I]

TJ Just pointing out the other side of May's "industrial strategy"; if you business isn't included in it you're probably toast.

So basically you are arguing, I want the government to ignore the result and stick to what we have. At least we are having some honesty now!!

I am sympathetic to the reasoning but believe that respecting the democratic process is more important, We lost. Not by much but we lost.

No one knows that the question means? Do you think that we were voting on the essence of the EU ie membership of the single market and all that this entails. Yes or no? If no, then what were we voting about?

May, before the referendum, made it clear she wanted an end to FoM and ECJ jurisdiction.
She has now made them the red lines in future negotiations.
That is what is limiting what can be achieved, nothing to do with "the will of the people".

There are lots of ways to leave the EU.

Well they are kind of core to the whole issue....r

How do you know how many ways there are? No one has done it before. This is a first.

If you mean retaining access then there are a v limited number, not lots. We have a bespoke deal - May's goal - of one of four alternatives: EEA, CU, FTA! WTO. We start the "negotiations" between two and three but skewed to three. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not that difficult really. Only spoilers try to pretend otherwise.

If no, then what were we voting about?

Immigration
An inaccurate budget contribution
The NHS
Taking control of things (that there was already control of)

Or did I miss something? The vote certainly wasn't based on cost benefit analysis.

Do you think that we were voting on the essence of the EU ie membership of the single market and all that this entails. Yes or no? If no, then what were we voting about?

I know people who wanted "out of a political union" and to "still be part of the single market".
People who said they "like all the trading aspects of the single market" but wanted "no part of closer union."

I'm sure you do to.

The single market was not in the question.

You can chose to push the line that the only way to leave the EU is to leave the single market if you want.

THM - I'd love the government to stick the result and I do t think that damages democracy as much as calling referenda in the first place. I accept that probably isn't going to happen.
And the vote was about what was on the voting slip so the answer is no. It was purely about EU membership. Or if it wasn't then it was about every promise and threat during the campaign and if there is a mandate for one there is a mandate for all.

(apologise for joining in with using the simple term "single market", when in reality it is a whole number of different agreements that some countries are in, and some are not)

The single market was not in the question.

Only if you/one want to hide behind a veil of ignorance, . It was at its core by definition. That is what the EU is, a single market.

Referenda????

Indeed membership. Membership of what?

"someone" on here berated me for highlighting the fact that as soon as Brexshite happens, Banks will leave in droves.

Obvious is obvious.

We know SocGen are out, MGren too, CityGroup are next with them looking at Ireland or anyone of the European cities..

I aint posting the link to the Gridieon, but its there.

Carney has committed to leave rates until 2019, when he leaves, just in time for the UK to sink lower than an Octopuses arsehole.

Heres a pic of a kitten playing with a ball, this should keep the Brexiteers occupied for a couple of days.

[img] [/img]

So Kerley your proposal for keeping the 48 happy when we leave is...... ? I thought they (me) wanted to stay, so how will they be happy when we leave? Do we get an EU flag each for nostalgia?

I don't have a proposal, but a hard Brexit clearly does not represent the will of the 48%.
The solution needs to include elements for both sides (good and bad)

Is Norway in the EU then?

Best case scenario - article 50 can be revoked (this will be decided by the european court, not sure how soon it's due).

In that case, the tories can invoke it, we have 2 years of mudslinging and accusations and hostility and then parliament can realise that the "deal" on offer is so much worse than what we currently have that they climb down. Cue riots and resignations left right and centre.

Of course this will cost billions, be hugely damaging politically and humiliate the country, but it's looking like the best possible outcome at this point.

No it is not a member of the EU

There are lots of ways to leave the EU.

You just slip out the union for customs, Dustin
We don't want no immigrant, Grant
Forget our ageing population, Jason
Just get yourself free
But what about the 350 bus, Gus?
You don't need to discuss much
Just 2 fingers to the EC and **** the economeee, Lee
And get yourself free

There must be 50 ways to leave the greatest free trade and socially progressive union the world has ever known.....

Is Norway in the single market then?

Semantics on what a single market is to follow

Yes, but the semantics can be dodged by observing that Norway is commonly agreed to not be a member of the EU, so whatever Norway's status is called, it's not possible to argue that leaving the EU necessarily prevents us from having essentially the same status as Norway.

TJ we'll leave Scotland for the Scottish thread. The good news aboit watching Newsnight on catchup is I can skip over Salmond.

Airbus (and Nipper's post)

Recently laid off 1000+ people, roughly 100 UK, 400 France (closing a plant), 400 Germany
Company struggling
Executives worried about Brexit putting further pressure on the company at a time when it is weak
Boeing likely to benefit from further strain on Airbus

So Airbus a major flagship European project is very worried about a hard Brexit impacting it's whole business. The EU not negotiating a sensible deal with the UK could severely damage it.

@tmh EU has lots of negotiators, cushy jobs for the euro boys and girls. Well paid, low tax, high pension. No time pressure, take as long as you want as the EU is about internal protectionism and expanding the club. The UK is hiring negotiators for a variety of reasons not least to focus on our global relationships. Personally those should be our priority. European unemployment is still rising, the signs are very bad

@Edukator Mdme Bird will take either €500k over 8 years or €800k over 5 - where do we apply ?

That is what the EU is, a single market.

.. and a bunch of other stuff...

So Jambalaya:

What sort of deal do you think would be 'sensible' and actually be better than being a full EU member? Genuine question.

airbus struggling? based on what? they employ ~ 10,000 people in the UK directly, and spend £4bn annually with UK suppliers.
in any case, if Trump keeps playing dickhead with China they'll sack off rather a large order with boeing and go airbus.

yeah, the EU has lots of negotiators, we don't. understand they even approached ACAS to see if they fancied chipping in!

The only answer he can give is: anything and everything. Because whatever Mayhem arrives at, he's got to say it's better than the current situation.

BIkebouy - one of the drivers for Scotland going for independence before the rUK exit - Edinburgh would be very well placed to take those banks

Jamba - nice swerve. Its a very difficult position the human rights one. Yes Scotland has different laws now in some areas but after May ditches your human rights its going to be really tricky for Westminster. Say Westminster introduces a change into social security that breaches the human rights act. This change could be challenged in Scotland but not England. So could not be applied in Scotland as it would be in England. Gonna cause major headaches

[i]Gonna cause major headaches [/I]

TJ

Westminster (and Jamba) don't care about Scotland really and tbh I'm surprised that May hasn't already suggested that we go for independence and stay in the EU as the 'rump' of the UK. Then they can get on messing the world up without us.

I'm surprised that May hasn't already suggested that we go for independence and stay in the EU as the 'rump' of the UK.

Can't remember if I saw it here or somewhere else, but someone suggested that the obvious solution is for England and Wales to declare independence from the UK.

The "UK" can then happily remain in the EU.
And The new "Kingdom of England and Wales" are free to negotiate their own trade deals etc without years of Article 50 bargaining and SNP pestering.

Simples.

(It's indicative of where we are at the moment that this crazy idea actually sounds like quite a good plan 🙂 )

My mate's about to move to Scotland. Interesting times for him!

So there will be a brexshit white paper (which is ironic, given that right now a blank piece of white paper more or less sums up the government's plan thus far)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38737967

Zokes - good. I bet Salmond is rubbing his hands with glee, A master parliamentarian and political schemer like him will enjoy the chance to make mischief over this.

well someone's got to be the opposition, and the official one doesn't seem up to the job.

So could not be applied in Scotland as it would be in England. Gonna cause major headaches

Why Scotland already has its own legal, education, healthcare etc. systems, plus things like different drink driving limits, so what extra headache does this bring.

Westminster don't care about Scotland really

I don't buy that, however, always remember Scotland only makes up ~10% of the population. In fact by population-wise it is slightly less than the West Mindlands.

A master parliamentarian and political schemer like him will enjoy the chance to make mischief over this.

He have to be incredibly talented - white papers don't go through Parliament.

Did i see Jamba right earlier, now predicting the demise of Airbus? Or is it something else European he hates?

So Airbus a major flagship European project is very worried about a hard Brexit impacting it's whole business. The EU not negotiating a sensible deal with the UK could severely damage it.

or they could move production back within the SM or CU and hey presto those 1000 jobs back plus a gain of another 5000 or so plus supply chain.

And that is what Airbus chairman said.

its the brexit white paper hokey-kokey

today its in

yesterday it was out

shake it all about

do the brexishambles and you turn around

Dragon. Imagine a UK wide policy such as social security. A rule change is introduced that is incompatible with the european decalaration of human rights such as some form of sanction. A scot successfully challenges it in the courts. An English fails in his challenge. Suddenly this UK wide rule would only apply in England not Scotland.

Its completely unworkable.

A scot successfully challenges it in the courts. An English fails in his challenge.

But we have a single supreme court?

Good point. Ah… oh…

How about companies like g4s that operate government contracts across the UK. In scotland they would have to act differently to in England.

Or what about the scot on holiday in England and the englishperson on holiday in Scotland?

Westminster policy on reserved matters could be legal in England like the snoopers charter but not in Scotland despite it being a reserved matter?

The idea the the european declaration on human rights only applies in part of the UK is such a nonsense

Suddenly this UK wide rule would only apply in England not Scotland.

Power devolved is power retained.

How about companies like g4s that operate government contracts across the UK. In scotland they would have to act differently to in England.

G4S operates in over 100 countries - I'm sure they could manage it.

Scotroutes - the point being if it was incompatible with the european declaration on human rights which is incorporated into scots law. Its not that its a devolved power - its that its incompatible with scots law but not english law.

Ie after westminster gets rid of human rights in England no challenge to bad law on human rights would be possible in England but it still would be possible to challenge it in Scotland ( and Wales and NI)

Mefty 😉 we don't need details to get in our "friend's " way

It's not semantics re Norway it's at the heart of the next stage. It doesn't matter if people may think they are member or not. They are not.

Membership and access are too fundamentally different thing. We have voted against the former and are now negotiating the terms of the latter.

They are part of the EEA which is different. We do not have a guaranteed right to join this either not even if we are the SNP!!

Kimbers the WP was a partial climb down times (PMQ staged question) to take the wind out of the old bloke. It was a success. It will probably merely repeat the details we already know.

May is getting the hang of this rather quickly

Membership and access are too fundamentally different thing.

And, there are many different forms of both.
Norway, for example, is signed up to the SM for manufactured goods, but not food and drink.
I'll leave you to argue if they have membership of, or access to, the SM.
Whatever they have, we could try to get, except May has taken a position that rules that out.

We have voted against the former and are now negotiating the terms of the latter.

No. We voted to leave the EU.
Our PM has her own personal red lines (not in the referendum question or her party's manifesto).
These red lines prevent us negotiating some form of SM membership, and probably most beneficial forms of access.

I'm on the train again. Have we not sorted this out yet? (Who am I kidding?)

Is EEA as I recall. So are we. We got joined due to being EU. Leaving EU does not appear (according to some decent legal minds) chuck us out of the EEA. For that we need to trigger Article 127 of the EEA agreement.

Did the voting slip say "and the EEA" in really small letters I didn't see?

They are part of the EEA which is different. We do not have a guaranteed right to join this

We are already in it afaik and A50 does not necessarily bring us out of it...

As we have no effective opposition in this country it's up to you to help these people.
http://www.open-britain.co.uk/spread_the_word?utm_campaign=obemail_23_2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=in

I hate to say this but when we leave the EU we wont automatically leave the ECHR

The EFTA treaty is a treaty between EU countries and EFTA countries so on leaving the EU we would only retain membership if we automatically became an EFTA state as defined in the treaty. There is no provision as far as I can see for this to happen automatically.

Edinburgh would be very well placed to take those banks

TJ Scotland is not well placed to take or retain any financial institution, eg bank or insurance company. Under the SNP plan it would have no financial regulator and no central bank/lender of last resort. That was one of the reasons I would have pulled my pension assets from Standard Life on the basis of a Yes.

@molgrips - any deal which provides tariff free access to a suitable trade balanced set of products and services. Namely tariff free trade netween the UK and the EU would be balanced on an economic value basis. Zero budget contribution. If the EU where to have full access to the UK market as at present they should pay us given trade imbalance. I could see a deal on Academic projects where we pay into a central fund on the basis we get yhe same amount of money back and we share access to all the research work.

I assume that since we left EFTA we would have to apply to rejoin which would require agreement of all the existing members.

any deal which provides tariff free access to a suitable trade balanced set of products and services

So how likely is it that we get that?

Probably why no one said anything about EFTA mefty. It is the EEA we're in, a bespoke deal could mean EEA without joining EFTA (although that it isn't going to happen with May's red lines). A very unlikely and difficult deal to get everyone to agree to though. A more reasonable aim would be try and be a part of the Single Market, but not in he EEA, like Switzerland. Again, not possible with May's red lines.

Zero contributions is your personal red line Jamba. It isn't the government's. It wasn't the question we voted on.

Norway Model. Remember the Norwegians rejected EU membership inna Referendum but the government just signed up to everything it could annyway.

EU White Paper. Smartly played by May, IMO she will publish the paper after triggering A50 having got that key irreversal step out of the way. I suppose we will never know whetther she was always intending to do so. She told the Brexit Committee that Parliament would be given the opportunity to fully scrutinise the Brexit deal.

Zero contributions is your personal red line Jamba. It isn't the government's. It wasn't the question we voted on.

Agreed, but I can only answer Molgrips question on the basis he asked it, ie what do I want. Budget contributions where a key part of the campaign whatever their weekly total.

Remember the Norwegians rejected EU membership inna Referendum but the government just signed up to everything it could annyway.

This is pretty much what I'd like to see. It won't happen though. You can see me as an extremist if you like.
Likewise, May pulling us out of everything, and signing up to nothing, is the other extreme.
Somewhere in between would be seen as a deal for 'the whole of the UK', rather than a minority of extremists at either end of the scale.
MPs need to wake up and get a grip on our manner of leaving.

The EEA treaty also uses a definition of EFTA member for the non EU states, what I said is about EEA as that was the treaty I looked at..

Not clear how much of this "signing up for everything/something/nothing" is likely to happen within the 2 year timeframe anyway. Most of this time will be spent over things like bickering over the exit bill and negotiating over the lives of the expats (both directions). At the end of which, we'll have the North Korea situation.

Norway Model. Remember the Norwegians rejected EU membership inna Referendum but the government just signed up to everything it could annyway.

From the man who is likely to be the US Ambassador to the EU, all good stuff 8)

1) The euro could collapse in 18 months

2) On UK trade negotiations prior to exit and the EU "prohibition"

"I think it is an absurd proposition and may be a legalism," he said.
"There are going to be all kinds of things happening behind closed doors and you can call them what you like.

3) On deal timing he points out that the worlds largest mergers and aquisitions are competed in 90 days if you have the right poeple in the room

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38749884

That's what the UK will have to do, at the price the EU decides to charge.

Pas du tout. We have a trade deficit (Norway has a surplus). See the piece above Edukator, the EU is totally ****ed. The reason May was being so consiliatroy about wanting to see the EU succeed the EU is well aware it is extreme vulnerable economically.

Trump is going to absolutely nail the eurozone to the wall over a Greece/Southern Europe debt write off / refinancing etc. It's going to be carnage and will be the biggest ego trip for Trump who is the "Dealmaker"

The euro could collapse in 18 months

Why is that good???!!

It allows some people to s****.

Hmm… peace and stability in Europe being at risk was supposedly "project fear"…

From someone in Trump team. A bit like when they deny climate change and all that nonsense.

[i]From the man who is likely to be the US Ambassador to the EU, all good stuff[/I]

FFS all good stuff!

Have you lost your mind, we're talking about a future where there could be no one (group) capable of standing up to the US. They'd be able to pick us off one by one, and the UK would end up as nothing other than a patsy nation to it.

NHS? That'll be history along with the majority of our social system replaced by global businesses answering to no one but no doubt head quartered in the US as they'll depend on their military might to support them.

Crackers.

Even you can't believe that this is a GOOD THING?

[i]3) On deal timing he points out that the worlds largest mergers and aquisitions are competed in 90 days if you have the right poeple in the room[/I]

Of course, bend over.

And tbh the easiest way to conclude any deal is to 'buy' the individuals involved in doing the deal..., pretty standard practice IME.

I really try to take what you post seriously, Jamba. However declaring the EU to be '****ed' prompts the question, "how so?" The EU is doing just fine, better than the UK on objective criteria. Each time you try to present data to prove your point the UK turns out to be worse than the eurozone. If the EU is "****ed", by the same measures the UK is double "****ed".

The UK is a union that is falling apart
The UK runs an unsustainable trade deficit
The Pound is tanking
The UK is falling into the hands of foreign investors

And that's before the UK cuts itself off from its neighbouring trading block with which is its biggest trading partner.

10 grand says the EU outlasts Trump's presidency. What do you say to that, jambalaya?

The interesting one on a Trump and the EU is that the America first policy is going to alienate China and the Pacific countries who will be looking to do deals with the EU precisely because they ain't Trump and he don't like them.
The US might be strong but not compared to a China - Germany led carve up if world trade.

Trump might bizarrely be the best thing ever for the EU as he presents a common enemy for lots of people.

Jamba - you don't think and independent scotland would set up those things?

<mod>Swear filter, gentlemen.</mod>

mefty - Member
The EFTA treaty is a treaty between EU countries and EFTA countries so on leaving the EU we would only retain membership if we automatically became an EFTA state as defined in the treaty. There is no provision as far as I can see for this to happen automatically.

Interesting. Between the EU and EFTA countries or between the EU and EFTA?
Well it appears a) the individuals signed it and b) EU membership doesn't automatically get you in - well not immediately.

So it appears to be between the countries that happen to be in those groupings not the groupings themselves.

That is consistent with the legal opinions around article 127 that have been in the press.

The EEA membership.

The EEA Agreement was signed in Porto on 2 May 1992 by the then seven states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the European Community (EC) and its then 12 member states.[8][9] On 6 December 1992, Switzerland's voters rejected the ratification of the agreement in a constitutionally mandated referendum,[10] effectively freezing the application for EC membership submitted earlier in the year. Switzerland is instead linked to the EU by a series of bilateral agreements. On 1 January 1995, three erstwhile members of EFTA—Austria, Finland and Sweden—acceded to the European Union, which had superseded the European Community upon the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty on 1 November 1993. Liechtenstein's participation in the EEA was delayed until 1 May 1995.[11]

As of 2014 the contracting parties to the EEA are 3 of the 4 EFTA member states and 27 of the 28 EU member states. The 28th and newest EU member, Croatia, finished negotiating their accession to the EEA in November 2013,[12] and since 12 April 2014 is provisionally applying the agreement pending its ratification by all EEA member states.

May pulling us out of everything, and signing up to nothing, is the other extreme.

It's the way it's heading, isn't it. For all Jamba et all's fictional protestations that this is what we all knew and wanted all along, one of two things will happen.

1) We'll pull out of Freedom of Movement, the EEA, the EFTA, the WWF, the WTF and all the other acronyms I can't even begin to keep track of, and will be left with the square root of geoff all as no-one will want to "cut a deal" with us without those things in place. Which might actually be the best outcome, because when we're left holding our ball with no-one to play with, we might actually realise what a monumentally hopeless corner we've painted ourselves into and overturn our decision to leave.

2) We won't do any of that, in which case we're left with all the restrictions people are bleating on about, with none of the benefits as we're out of the EU.

Remind me again how any of this omnishambles leaves us "better off"?