UK in the EU. Japan warning!

ninfan – Member

“An independent Scotland would not have possession of or allow nuclear weapons in Scottish territory.”

Maybe I should have explained the “danish position” but since you posted about it I thought you’d have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

ohnohesback – Member
…whos’….who’s…

or even whose? 😉

I’d need to consider leaving the UK if we leave the EU. I work in a global company as a European point of contact for the European market. Would be a good excuse to move near some French mountains I guess.

Me too, we were taken over by a huge German company and work with them on high-tech stuff which gets sold to german/french customers on a regular basis. Anything that makes that even slightly more difficult isn’t good news. I suspect they’d close our small office and offer us positions in Germany.

But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?

We keep straying into Scottish independence. Something I’m an enthusiast of. Rather selfishly so I can send my kids up for a university education at your expense. Oh and I don’t think that you should be using the pound if you are really independent.

Back to the EU

So it seems that the anti EU stance is “of of course we’ll stay in the free trade area just stop paying our subs”. Is that really an option? Switzerland and Norway may have a position that we envy but that doesn’t mean that the same position is available to us?

Because leaving the

But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?

What happens? The likes of you and I bugger off and take a decently paid job into the EU, I’d guess.

I don’t think my own position is particularly unique. In my case my company relocated a job from the US to the EU and I was the beneficiary. If it’s no longer sustainable for that job to be in the UK, then it’ll get shifted to mainland Europe, no bother at all.

Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I’ve yet to see that impact factored into any of the “out” camp’s calculations. It’s all just narrow-minded “we get back less than we pay in”, without a single consideration of externalities.

Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I’ve yet to see that impact factored into any of the “out” camp’s calculations. It’s all just narrow-minded “we get back less than we pay in”, without a single consideration of externalities

Plus all the money form you spending money…

Yes that seems to be the focus of the whole argument, yet we seem to get lost in the distractions of fruit size/shape regulation…….

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, of course. Mine is that you’d have to be something of a blithering idiot not to see the benefits of our current role of being an Anglophone member of the EU, with such close trade ties to the United States.

Anyway, this just reminds me to work on my French.

Maybe I should have explained the “danish position” but since you posted about it I thought you’d have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Brilliant, so we can keep using Faslane, job jobbed!

I don’t know why I even bother tbh… is it so hard to understand the difference between visiting and permanent stationing?

ninfan – Member
…Brilliant, so we can keep using Faslane, job jobbed!

It’ll be a Scottish base, so you’ll just be visiting.

You’ll still have to base your submersible nuclear targets somewhere in England. I suggest London so they are close to your decision makers so they can enjoy the consequences of their use.

That’s if you haven’t already dumped the nuclear weaponry. I’m sure the prospect of having it based near a large English population will motivate folk down there to reconsider their love for holocaust weaponry.

Maybe my irony detector is malfunctioning, or have you really missed the news this week? Almost 2/3rds of it’s populations moved out and the City’s just filed for bankrupcy!

No Didn’t miss the news I followed a lot of it before it was on the cards to file for chapter 9 ,how they said Detroit would arise from the ashes ,the next generation of young entrepreneur etc making it work ,being smarter ,new industries of design etc etc

much of this is being said right here and by similar types of people

It seems theres no easy ride ,survive it and rebuild it from the ground up seems to have been the mantra in NZ and now in Detroit, how long will it be before we are in the same boat ?

That’s if you haven’t already dumped the nuclear weaponry. I’m sure the prospect of having it based near a large English population will motivate folk down there to reconsider their love for holocaust weaponry

They can store them in my barn for a modest fee.

Maybe I should have explained the “danish position” but since you posted about it I thought you’d have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Have you bothered reading that quote from Lord Robertson I gave up there yet? Denmark was a founder member of NATO. Just like rejoining the EU, you get different conditions to existing members.

So it seems that the anti EU stance is “of of course we’ll stay in the free trade area just stop paying our subs”. Is that really an option?

Of course it is. Possibly not in exactly the same form as we have now, or in the way Switzerland or Norway have, but we are actually quite an important trading partner for the rest of the EU. As pointed out up thread it’s not like we’d stop paying subs entirely – we’d just pay subs for the single market bit.

aracer – Member

Have you bothered reading that quote from Lord Robertson I gave up there yet?

Oh go on, instead of general rudeness, why not tell me what you think I’m missing?

Nothing in that quote provides a problem. Scotland has already accepted this strategic concept, and in fact had done so before Lord Robertson posed the question (The scottish government position is clear and on the record, and the Yes campaign have no policy of nuclear exclusion).

It is just typical anti-independence scaremongering. What’s that you say, Lord Robertson pro-union? That’s astonishing! The truth is that while the suggestion we’d automatically enter was nonsense, there are no convincing barriers to Scotland entering NATO and many reasons why we would be welcomed.

Switzerland and Norway have to pay import duties on exports to the EU, but with economies based on oil and dodgy banking this hasn’t been much of a blow to them so far. However as the oil supplies dwindle in Norway and international agreements squeeze the Swiss dodgy banking sector, they may well wish they were more “in” rather than sitting on the fence.

Scotland has already accepted this strategic concept

Has it? You said “Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft” – which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

Switzerland and Norway have to pay import duties on exports to the EU

Wrong.

I am not sure that that is strictly correct MSP. The Swiss have a number of bilateral trade agreements that in effect give them the same status as other members in specific industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

aracer – Member
“Scotland has already accepted this strategic concept”
Has it? You said “Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft” – which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

That’s in the life of his government post independence.

We’ll probably be electing other parties thereafter, so basically the position on nuclear will be whatever we vote for then. Strange thing democracy… 🙂

The Swiss have a number of bilateral trade agreements that in effect give them the same status as other members in specific industries.

But it’s still a right bugger dealing with the separation in some industries like IT, take it from me

Relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union’s single market.

So this is exactly what UKIP want then

I look forward to quoting it back to you as the referendum gets closer

aracer – Member

Has it? You said “Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft” – which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

Care to spoil us with a source for that? NATO has no requirement that non-nuclear nations allow foreign nuclear weapons to be stationed permanently on their shores.

Care to spoil us with a source for that?

er, http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/uk-in-the-eu-japan-warning/page/2#post-5174877 😕

Well aracer I thought I’d do some googling on this easy transition to free trade area only

This ones great. I love this quote

“Norway

It is important to understand how special a case Norway is. Norway is the one of the largest exporters of oil and gas in the world, selling over two million barrels of oil a day overseas. Norway derives so much income from energy that the Norwegian government has established a fund – now valued at $525 billion – to invest the proceeds abroad in order not to distort the Norwegian economy and so as to be prepared for the exhaustion of its energy reserves. Although oil production has been declining for several years, Norway is still the world’s third largest exporter of crude oil and natural gas production has expanded through the exploitation of new fields.

Approximately 70 per cent of Norway’s exports go to the EU and over 80 per cent of her imports come from those countries. Over half of Norway’s exports are in the form of energy; EU countries import almost 100 per cent of Norway’s natural gas exports. “

any way in the interest of balance can some one find me an informed article on how we might move to free trade area only?

I already posted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

You’ll note that we’re already a member of that and that you don’t need to be an EU member to belong. I can’t see any logical reason why we’d need to leave the EEA if we left the EU.

i think the EU will decide who is their club and who is not.
We are no longer members of EFTA and are in the free trade area by being in the EU so we would need new mebership.
I doubt the EU will just flip the membership so that we no longer pay and still trade so we would need to ask to join their club.

Whatever happens surely we can agree it wont be carry on trading but just dont pay. I doubt either side will press the nuclear option of no trade agreement but no change is a very naive viewpoint. Like scottish devolution , as the negotiations have not taken place, no one can say with any certainty but no change seems the least likely outcome of leaving or why are we leaving?
We do of course need to harmonise still and we then dont have a say in the rules [ beyond a consultation] which is not the core reason for leaving iirc.

What a predictable response. Read the link carefully – we are members of the EEA in our own right, not as part of the EU. Nobody is suggesting we would be a member of the EEA without paying anything.

So my predictable response is one you agree with then – ie we will need to renegotiate with them for payments – not really getting why you bothered with scorn on tbh 😥
As for we are a member of course we are, we are in the EU but we will have voted to leave, so, we wont be.

The European Economic Area (EEA) comprises the member states of the European Union (EU), except Croatia,[3] plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.[4] It was established on 1 January 1994 following an agreement between the member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Community (which became the EU)

What part am I missing ?
We would not be a members of the EU.
We are not currently members of EFTA
You accept payments would need to be discussed but its not a renegotiation of our membership

your link also includes this which i doubt will be part of the Core message of the yes campaign though the message is catchy

Same laws less say –

The EEA is based on the same “four freedoms” as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EFTA countries that are part of the EEA enjoy free trade with the European Union.

As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. These states have little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels.

The EFTA countries that are part of the EEA do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market. After the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004, there was a tenfold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years).

EFTA countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.

Legislation[edit]

The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the “first pillar” of the European Union).

The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission.[36][37]

What happens if we vote to leave no one knows with a high degre eof certainty but change is inevitable and a renegotiation. We could hypothesise widely on what this would be but neither of seem to be denying it would take place

aracer that link looks clear cut and until you click the Talk tab. Then it looks like a colander

What will the 2017 ballet paper say

Please tick one of the below

1. Remain in EU
2. Leave EU and go it alone
3. Leave EU and then hope we can wangle some sort of trade deal

the problem with the trade deal ids you still need to harmonise your laws and we dont have a say so nothing has changed re their influence it is just we now have less influence on these laws.

If you want to leave and plough your own field then fine but it is highly unlikely they will let us stop our payments, let us ignore their laws and still let us free trade with them.

I’m with you on that Junkyard. To me it seems to be in or out. My worry is that people will be duped into voting out on the basis that some sort of magic deal is just round the corner

aracer, so your best source on NATO policy is NINfan? No wonder you’re getting it wrong.

aracer, so your best source on NATO Salmond’s policy is NINfan Northwind? No wonder you’re getting it wrong.

Returning to the original subject of Japan and the matter of car production and our membership of the EU, it seems slightly odd Japan threatening us like that, seeing as how their car production in the UK over the last year or two has been dramatically reduced, workers hours cut, and the factory in Swindon cutting production for long periods, because of the downturn in demand for Honda cars in the Eurozone. If Honda can’t sell cars in Europe, surely where they’re built is irrelevant, if they can’t sell the damn things. Personally, I think it’s a hollow bluff, the Swindon factory is huge, with billions invested in it, and it’s engine plant, so going abroad would mean writing off those billions and having to invest even more billions in new plant, to build cars that they have no buyers for.

What motive would the Japanese have for bluffing in this fashion?

aracer, you’ve claimed that NATO won’t accept the Danish approach from a new member, and you’ve not been able to support that. Why not give it a go instead of turning to playground games, since your whole argument depends on it?

Returning to the original subject of Japan and the matter of car production and our membership of the EU, it seems slightly odd Japan threatening us like that, seeing as how their car production in the UK over the last year or two has been dramatically reduced, workers hours cut, and the factory in Swindon cutting production for long periods, because of the downturn in demand for Honda cars in the Eurozone. If Honda can’t sell cars in Europe, surely where they’re built is irrelevant, if they can’t sell the damn things.

they do sell cars in Europe. The market may not be growing, or even contracting, but they do sell cars in Europe

To me its simple. one of the reasons japan builds cars here is that they can sell them easily through out the EU. If we end up with no free trade agreement with Europe then they won’t instantly shut up shop

Personally, I think it’s a hollow bluff, the Swindon factory is huge, with billions invested in it, and it’s engine plant, so going abroad would mean writing off those billions and having to invest even more billions in new plant, to build cars that they have no buyers for.

well I don’t suppose that it will happen over night. But if Britain is no longer in a free trade zone then they’ll take that into account when they need to re invest for a new model. I’d say having 5% import tax on cars for sale in Europe will mean that they are less likely re invest here.

Also what do they gain in this bluff?