UK forum members, BREXIT?

[nctnico]

...we loose the ability to influence the EU

We have never had the ability to influence the EU and that is the crux of the problem for me, the EU is not a proper democracy. Britain is not the only country that has issues with the direction of the EU but there is nothing any of the countries that have these concerns can do to change the direction of the EU. Britain even less so as we have a reputation as not being committed to the EU project so anything we have to say is not really taken seriously.

This is sounding rather bratty as if only the UK knows what is best for the EU! IMHO the UK should have adopted the euro as well. Currently the EU makes up for only a third of the UK's export even though the EU is next door and I think that has a lot to do with having to deal with exchange rate risks.

[Tandy]

Currently the EU makes up for only a third of the UK's export even though the EU is next door and I think that has a lot to do with having to deal with exchange rate risks.

I think there is a lot more to it than that, for a start the EU does not have a single language, the primary language in the UK is English, also spoken by millions of Americans & Australians. It is therefore relatively easy to sell to those countries without having to create localised marketing, manuals, support services. There are 24 official and working languages for the EU and only 1 for the United States.

[tszaboo]

I suspect this is satire but there are people who actually think retardedly like this.

Hungary is going to vote whether we want to have immigrants forcefully moved to Hungary. Polls suggest that some 80% will be against it. Why? Because the country only exist now because it put up walls and kept those people on the other side. This was going on for centuries. Do I really have to explain what is going on?

The UK doesnt want to leave the EU. The UK wants to change all the stupidity which is going on. I dont blame them. EU is good.

[Zero999]

What makes you believe that if the UK left, the EU would suddenly start charging tariffs on UK goods? If they did that, then the UK would quite likely do the same to EU goods so it wouldn't achieve anything, especially given the EU sell more goods to the UK than they buy.

Because the default position, unless an agreement has been reached is that tariffs will apply.

In practice I am sure we would try to reach an agreement but as I have said before, if we want tariff free access to the single market the cost is likely to be continued acceptance of the free movement of labour - we loose the ability to influence the EU but still get most of the baggage which is why I don't favour that type of deal.

But it's not certain they will make free movement a condition of a trade agreement. If the UK left the EU and just said no to free movement, then the EU may refuse a deal or they may not, but don't make out that they definitely will. That would be a lie. You can't be certain about what will happen and even if the EU makes threats, it doesn't mean they'll carry them out.

No I don't claim to know what will happen or what agreement will be reached - all anyone can do is guess. However we can look at the Swiss situation where the EU is making it clear they do not want to continue the current arrangements.

BUT, I can be certain that if a Norwegian style arrangement is reached in which the price of access is continued donation to the EU purse and acceptance of free movement of labour then we will have won nothing and lost participation and influence.

Even if we manage to negotiate access to the market we will still have to produce goods which adhere to the market regulations without the ability to influence those regulations.

Currently the UK is running a trade deficit with the EU and is exporting less. Imposing tariffs on one of your biggest customers will only cause more harm then good.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit

All other things being equal you are probably right - but the EU is genuinely worried about the possibility of Brexit destabilising the Union and might well want it to go badly for us - I don't think a divorce will be as amicable as we would hope. Yes that is guessing again but very public figures have said that it will be difficult for us to access the market afterwards.

The bottom line is that I view a Norwegian style deal as too similar to what we have now but with the loss of any input to the process, I view a full pull out as potentially too destabilising and I view the possibility of the any future deals allowing us to pick and choose what we want as remote.

You keep referring to the Norwegians and Swiss but the UK is totally different to either of them. For example, we might decide to only allow free movement of people from the richest and most powerful EU countries and exclude the rest, which may help with establishing a trade deal. Then if we leave we have more freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries, especially the commonwealth, which suffered when we joined.

The only thing you've said which is certain is if our products need to be exported to the EU, then they will have to comply with EU regulations but the same can be said for any other country.

[grumpydoc]

You keep referring to the Norwegians and Swiss but the UK is totally different to either of them. For example, we might decide to only allow free movement of people from the richest and most powerful EU countries and exclude the rest, which may help with establishing a trade deal. Then if we leave we have more freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries, especially the commonwealth, which suffered when we joined.

The only thing you've said which is certain is if our products need to be exported to the EU, then they will have to comply with EU regulations but the same can be said for any other country.

Only because the agreements that those nations have with the EU are being used as the archetypes for discussion/illustration as to how any future agreement between the EU and the UK would look following our exit (if that is what happens). I completely agree that the UK situation is not closely mirrored by either nation.

The "Swiss model" is probably out because the EU don't even want the Swiss to continue with it.

If we want to get all the negotiations done is 2 years the best would be to pick an existing agreement and say "we'll have one like that", otherwise the divorce will take forever (it probably will anyway).

[Delta]

I will certainly be voting to leave.

Whatever one's views and opinions are on democracy, sovereignty, migration control etc are (and everyone is entitled to their own, it is naturally subjective, and therefore impossible to say that a certain opinion is "wrong" and another is "right"), what is an objective fact is that the EU is a hopelessly inefficient, incredibly bloated, and extremely wasteful bureaucracy.

Hardly anyone who works there can properly explain just what the Council of Europe, The European Council, The European Parliament, etc etc actually do and how they do it.


For me, sovereignty is extremely important.  The highest parliament governing the UK should be in the UK.  The highest court ruling on UK cases should be in the UK.  Decisions on whom may live and work in the UK should be taken by the UK and the UK alone.   

Many people rightly complain about our unelected House of Lords, but the undemocraticness (is that a word?) of the EU system swamps that.


I am sure there will be a little wobble to our economy if we leave, but that will be a small price worth paying, as the EU economy is in a death spiral.


I sincerely hope that we vote to leave, and after a few years when the transition is over and the sky hasn't fallen, our brothers and sisters across the continent make the same move and leave the sinking ship.

[AndyC_772]

The only thing you've said which is certain is if our products need to be exported to the EU, then they will have to comply with EU regulations but the same can be said for any other country.

IMHO this is actually one of the few good things to come out of the requirement that all EU members have to adopt EU Directives into law.

If I design a product, I only have to get it tested to a single set of safety, EMC and other specifications, apply one approval mark, and I can sell it anywhere in Europe. No individual country can say "no, no, no, we're special, you have to test to our standards in our country and put our mark on your product before you can sell here".

That's a massive benefit. Anyone who ever designed telephone equipment, back in the day when everything had to be tested to each country's incumbent operator's specs, will understand.

[Zero999]

The only thing you've said which is certain is if our products need to be exported to the EU, then they will have to comply with EU regulations but the same can be said for any other country.

IMHO this is actually one of the few good things to come out of the requirement that all EU members have to adopt EU Directives into law.

If I design a product, I only have to get it tested to a single set of safety, EMC and other specifications, apply one approval mark, and I can sell it anywhere in Europe. No individual country can say "no, no, no, we're special, you have to test to our standards in our country and put our mark on your product before you can sell here".

That's a massive benefit. Anyone who ever designed telephone equipment, back in the day when everything had to be tested to each country's incumbent operator's specs, will understand.

I agree with you there.

What I disagree with is when the EU starts interfering with things which have nothing to do with trade, such as the colours of the wires used in fixed electrical installations.

[wraper]

Might be worth to read about what options UK will have.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

[bitslice]

"For a culture to be successful t"
I don't think that's thee question here.

It's essentially how cultures function, so I think it is relevant.

You support banning of offensive speeches. 

No I don't.
I took issue with an expression of an alien culture that serve no common purpose in my country.

My question to you is simple: when someone considers your speech too be offensive, do you support banning of your own speech?

Which has changed from your original question which was : "What if others outlaw your ability to think the way you do because somehow it is offensive for them that you think that way?"

Free speech is fine, dressing up as scary black ninjas is not.
Coincidentally Turkey and Syria (and France) agree with me, most of Europe is still discussing the issue. The only country which chooses to stick its head in the sand is the UK.

Anyone who ever designed telephone equipment, back in the day when everything had to be tested to each country's incumbent operator's specs, will understand.

OMG I've been there, I swear they were all doing it deliberately just to be contrary.
"No no no, our ringtone must be 10ms longer than yours..."

    

French car wiring colours need to be changed, last I looked it was green and brown - Sheesh, at least try and pick something intuitive

[VK3DRB]

The poms need the EU, because for one reason their own justice system cannot be trusted.

[FreddyVictor]

The poms need the EU, because for one reason their own justice system cannot be trusted.

that could be said of alot of countries 

interesting article re: TTIP - looks like this will be forced onto all EU countries whether they like it or not
so much for EU democracy ...

[grumpydoc]

Might be bortth to read abpout what options UK will have.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

Not just options but impacts - a very good read.

[NivagSwerdna]

Might be bortth to read abpout what options UK will have.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

Not just options but impacts - a very good read.

Propaganda https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Centre_for_European_Reform

[nctnico]

The poms need the EU, because for one reason their own justice system cannot be trusted.

that could be said of alot of countries 

interesting article re: TTIP - looks like this will be forced onto all EU countries whether they like it or not
so much for EU democracy ...

I need to see TTIP going to happen first because there is so much opposition against it (which is good IMHO). But... do you really think the UK can hammer out a better deal with the US on their own? I think Cameron just gets Trump's or Hillary's fist up his * (where the sun doesn't shine).

[grumpydoc]

Might be bortth to read abpout what options UK will have.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

Not just options but impacts - a very good read.

Propaganda https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Centre_for_European_Reform

So? Is there any agent in this argument who does not have an agenda?

Whatever you think about the organisation it is, at least, a reasonable discussion on the main points and influencing factors.

[wraper]

Might be bortth to read abpout what options UK will have.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

Not just options but impacts - a very good read.

Propaganda https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Centre_for_European_Reform

That certainly is a very reliable and unbiased source of information. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

[Marco]

So? Is there any agent in this argument who does not have an agenda?

Whatever you think about the organisation it is, at least, a reasonable discussion on the main points and influencing factors.

I ctrl-F'd for refugee, asylum and Dublin ... nothing. All these studies on the impact of Eastern European migrants are nice and all, but not all that relevant to contemporary times.

[jancumps]

Thunderf00t has posted a video on the subject.

[rstofer]

As a "stronger" economy the UK should be supporting others in Europe - it benefits us all in the long term. Remember our gross contribution to Europe is only about 1% of GDP so it is not costing us a lot in relative terms.

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?  Why take money from UK taxpayers and donate it to non-producers?

Why be forced to accept uncontrolled immigration?  Especially from groups who want to retain 7th century ideas and have no intention of assimilating?  France is swamped by this issue.

The voters of the UK are the people whose opinions count.  Do they think the UK gains more from membership than they lose?  The opinions of members of government are bought and paid for.  It's up to the voters to decide.

In a way, BREXIT is a disrupter in the same way Trump is a disrupter.  Things won't be the same if Trump gets elected and it will be up to history to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.  Same for BREXIT.  Taking the disrupter path guarantees a change!

[wraper]

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?

And such thinking is the reason why US has completely screwed up healthcare. It's not about health but about money it can suck out of each individual.

[AndyC_772]

Dumb question alert...

In this day and age, where we have jet powered travel and real-time global communications, why is EU membership restricted to countries that are geographically located in the part of the Earth's surface we call "Europe"?

Why shouldn't other countries be able to join if they wish? Why should it have such a compelling draw for countries that happen to share physical borders with other members, but (apparently) no appeal otherwise?

Perhaps the EU would work better for all if it were to admit some other countries that could, in turn, also help open up trade links with places further away?

So, if you're, say, in America... how would you feel about your country joining the EU? Do you think you'd benefit? Would other members? Would you adopt the Euro?

What if you're in South Korea? Or New Zealand? Or India?

[rstofer]

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?

And such thinking is the reason why US has completely screwed up healthcare. It's not about health but about money it can suck out of you.

I agree that healthcare in the US is an abomination but it isn't anywhere near as bad as NHS.  I can often get an appointment with my primary care provider in a matter of hours, not weeks.  If I am less concerned about seeing my individual PCP, I can get an appointment in less than an hour.  For urgent care I can go to any hospital.  Right now!  I have had non-governmental healthcare for nearly 50 years, most often as an employee benefit.  In other words, I worked for it!

I don't see the correlation between US healthcare and the UK subsidizing Europe.  Isn't there something better to do with 8bn pounds?  But it's up to the voters of the UK.  I'm just a bystander and waiting anxiously to see how it comes out!  Other than the US election, BREXIT is the best show in town.

[rstofer]

Dumb question alert...

In this day and age, where we have jet powered travel and real-time global communications, why is EU membership restricted to countries that are geographically located in the part of the Earth's surface we call "Europe"?

Why shouldn't other countries be able to join if they wish? Why should it have such a compelling draw for countries that happen to share physical borders with other members, but (apparently) no appeal otherwise?

Perhaps the EU would work better for all if it were to admit some other countries that could, in turn, also help open up trade links with places further away?

So, if you're, say, in America... how would you feel about your country joining the EU? Do you think you'd benefit? Would other members? Would you adopt the Euro?

What if you're in South Korea? Or New Zealand? Or India?

From the US, I want absolutely nothing to do with any form of global (read non-responsive) government.  I simply don't care what they think in Brussels.  We have enough problems with Hillary wanting to go along with UN mandates.  Trade is business, let's talk!  But how we do things is to be decided by us, not Europeans.

As to the EC admitting other countries, not a problem for me but...  Were I a member country, I would want to be certain that candidate countries have a net positive economy.  Nobody needs another country to subsidize.  So, for New Zealand and Australia, no problem.  Sudan would be an issue.

We just don't need a global welfare state.  We should encourage trade at every opportunity but global government is a truly bad idea.

[NivagSwerdna]

Nice cartoon at Zerohedge.