EU vote?

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Gman2

Well if BREXIT can counter these figures (and I don't mean you personally ) then I'm open minded. But if in essence they are correct then I'm not sure where the OUTers can really go with what has the EU done for British business apart from tie us up with red tape and restrictions routine 'cos it's all there. Sure the CBI probably have a vested interest but for what - for the benefit of British business that we all want to see grow and prosper?

And that's where we differ, I believe quality is always better than quantity, but I don't believe the CBI are familiar with the expression.
"Brexit the video" and "BBC Paxman in Brussels" are sufficient for me, and I don't mean the cheap gibes about straight bananas and the like, but the whole system is corrupt, so almost by definition, any organisation that supports the EU must also be suspect. Even if the CBI are correct, I just don't believe the world will come to an end when we exit. Yes, perhaps we will loose a few jobs, but did you shed a tear when 75% of the fishing industry lost their jobs? Or the Farmers? As far as the EU is concerned, the U.K. Is expendable, nothing more than a outlet for German built cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by rab60bit

Not one single member country of significance has ever departed the EU (or it's earlier apparitions).
The UK, as a leading/significant net contributing member, will have considerable 'clout' in any post exit negotiations and, when it comes to tariffs, the present balance of trade will ensure a quid pro quo across the broad range of product and services for many future arrangements.
I'm in favour of an exit but would much prefer to remain within an EU that recognises it's many failings and commits to significant reformation and change/modifications to treaties that would be necessary. Unfortunately it will not happen because the EU leadership (now dominated, not by visionaries but by second generation grey suits and big business lobbying) is sticking doggedly to what are probably obsolescent and impractical objectives.
Go back to the basics, simplify fundamentals in regard to a free trade area and tariff free movement of GOODS/services, entirely drop the political union objective and reduce the bloated bureaucracy (after all, over +40 years most of the 'standardisation' work has now been done). Free movement of labour (people) has to be revisited in the light of the current uncontrolled mass migration which was never part of the original vision.

Well said - I totally agree

The only thing I would point out is that Greenland left the EEC/EU in 1985 It held a new referendum and voted to leave the EEC after wrangling with the EU over fishing rights. Greenland remains subject to the EU treaties through association of Overseas Countries and Territories with the EU.

There are some interesting parallels - particularly regarding the Fishing Industries - The introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy was a highly divisive measure, which many sceptics argued showed the true nature of the EU, insofar as the disputes surrounding coastal waters and "quota hopping" that soon followed demonstrated the degree to which UK sovereignty had been subjected to EU law.

For Greenland, however, it was intolerable. The territory (of Denmark) had voted in a 1972 referendum against entry by more than 70 per cent, but had since obtained home rule from Denmark in 1979. Provisions for Greenland to withdraw from the EU were negotiated after a second referendum result in February 1982. Following agreement of the Greenland Treaty of withdrawal on March 13th 1984, Greenland formally ceased to be part of the EU in early 1985, but retains trade privileges under its "overseas country and territory" status.

So whilst obviously not of the order of magnitude of the UK leaving - there are still interesting parallels.

What interests me - (but steadfastly ignored by the Remainers) is that again - here we have a country not in the EU but having "trade privilages" due here to Overseas Country and Territory status.

Turkey has a Common Customs Agreement - .............

Seems to me that there are many countries that have preferential trading agreements with the EU without being constrained by EU membership.

I was previously aware of Norway and Switzerland - but I was not aware of all the other variations.

Also - just for completeness - Algeria left the EU after it gained independence from France.

Originally Posted by Gman2

Well if he predicted c £90 billion to be lost in 5 days then his crystal ball gets my vote any day..

I look forward to receiving it.

can I just say that the Markets - and the FTSE100 is just one of many market indices - are always volatile - it is how they work.

A good analogy is with house prices. Yes it is nice if your house increases in value - but you can still live in your house and enjoy it even if its value declines.

You only take a hit if you sell when the market is low.

The key element here is timing - knowing when to go in and when to come out.

[rab60bit]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

Well said - I totally agree

The only thing I would point out is that Greenland left the EEC/EU in 1985 It held a new referendum and voted to leave the EEC after wrangling with the EU over fishing rights. Greenland remains subject to the EU treaties through association of Overseas Countries and Territories with the EU.

There are some interesting parallels - particularly regarding the Fishing Industries - The introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy was a highly divisive measure, which many sceptics argued showed the true nature of the EU, insofar as the disputes surrounding coastal waters and "quota hopping" that soon followed demonstrated the degree to which UK sovereignty had been subjected to EU law.

For Greenland, however, it was intolerable. The territory (of Denmark) had voted in a 1972 referendum against entry by more than 70 per cent, but had since obtained home rule from Denmark in 1979. Provisions for Greenland to withdraw from the EU were negotiated after a second referendum result in February 1982. Following agreement of the Greenland Treaty of withdrawal on March 13th 1984, Greenland formally ceased to be part of the EU in early 1985, but retains trade privileges under its "overseas country and territory" status.

So whilst obviously not of the order of magnitude of the UK leaving - there are still interesting parallels.

What interests me - (but steadfastly ignored by the Remainers) is that again - here we have a country not in the EU but having "trade privilages" due here to Overseas Country and Territory status.

Turkey has a Common Customs Agreement - .............

Seems to me that there are many countries that have preferential trading agreements with the EU without being constrained by EU membership.

I was previously aware of Norway and Switzerland - but I was not aware of all the other variations.

Also - just for completeness - Algeria left the EU after it gained independence from France.

We're on the same page so to speak…...but see first line
"..of significance.."!
I'll add for impact that we're also a substantially long term member.
Ah, trade privileges and special agreements, Remainians never mention those 'possibilities'
Good stuff about Greenland…and Algeria, didn't know that.

[FLYER]

Originally Posted by steve-45

I still wonder if the Scots will vote OUT to try to force another independence referendum.

As Ms. Sturgon has said many times that an out vote would trigger another Scottish referendum.

correction.....

We Scots will vote IN in the hope England votes out.

THAT should force a second referendum.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by rab60bit

We're on the same page so to speak…...but see first line
"..of significance.."!
I'll add for impact that we're also a substantially long term member.
Ah, trade privileges and special agreements, Remainians never mention those 'possibilities'
Good stuff about Greenland…and Algeria, didn't know that.

Totally agree re the "significance" - we would be the first by that parameter - the 5th largest economy in the world walking away from the EU????

Not just significant for the EU - I would say it would be monumental.

But to me - it does seem that precedents are there that the Remain Camp seem very coy about. Or maybe they were as genuinely ignorant of these options as I was until I looked at it.

[bobthebuilder]

Originally Posted by FLYER

correction.....

We Scots will vote IN in the hope England votes out.

THAT should force a second referendum.

Are the votes counted nationally so we even know that or are they put into one big pot?

[chipsceola]

Answer me this - it's now June 24 and by a narrow margin the result is to leave the EU: we are told the exit process will take 2 years as it's written into the constitution.

1. When do we cease to be a member state?
2. When does our financial contribution end?
3. At which date do the trade agreements end?
4. How soon after the 24th can we ignore EU laws?
5. When can we make changes to immigration?

I have seen nothing to suggest answers to these and similar questions.

[Gman2]

Originally Posted by Polly

And that's where we differ, I believe quality is always better than quantity, but I don't believe the CBI are familiar with the expression.
"Brexit the video" and "BBC Paxman in Brussels" are sufficient for me, and I don't mean the cheap gibes about straight bananas and the like, but the whole system is corrupt, so almost by definition, any organisation that supports the EU must also be suspect. Even if the CBI are correct, I just don't believe the world will come to an end when we exit. Yes, perhaps we will loose a few jobs, but did you shed a tear when 75% of the fishing industry lost their jobs? Or the Farmers? As far as the EU is concerned, the U.K. Is expendable, nothing more than a outlet for German built cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"As far as the EU is concerned, the UK is expendable" - hold on I thought the OUTers argument earlier on was that Europe needs us more than we need them so I'm getting confused now. Which is it are we wanted or not

Yup - you're right we do differ. If you honestly think that the whole system is that corrupt and so by definition everything that supports must also be suspect then I find your perspective is bizarre and actually quite sad in a way that you feel that bitter. Yes - I work in an area that relies heavily on European cooperation on a daily basis so by your definition my role in contributing to this corrupt structure must also deemed to be suspect. I'm glad to say that I can look at myself in the mirror and be satisfied that I'm doing a fully transparent and accountable job as are my colleagues

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by chipsceola

Answer me this - it's now June 24 and by a narrow margin the result is to leave the EU: we are told the exit process will take 2 years as it's written into the constitution.

1. When do we cease to be a member state?
2. When does our financial contribution end?
3. At which date do the trade agreements end?
4. How soon after the 24th can we ignore EU laws?
5. When can we make changes to immigration?

I have seen nothing to suggest answers to these and similar questions.

1) Article 50 says it will take 2 years and involves negotiations with all remaining 27 member states. The UK would effectively cease to be an EU member as soon as it invokes Article 50 post a Brexit vote - But note - there is a lot of scare stories re Article 50 - about how the EU will dictate terms etc. But that did not happen with Greenland or Algeria - but then they were hardly the 5th largest economy in the world - so we will be treading new ground. But the reality is that theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state.

2) Good question - I think it is on a sliding scale depending on negations - for example the countries not in the EU but has trading agreements with it there is a participation fee. This varies with what we negotiate.

"According to Professor Herman Matthijs of the Free University of Brussels, who has produced the only like-with-like comparator, Iceland’s annual per capita contribution is €50, Switzerland’s €68 and Norway’s €107 — largely because Norway insists on opting into lots of EU aid and research projects. Iceland, though it has precisely the same treaty terms, chooses to participate in fewer common activities and so pays less. The United Kingdom’s -current per -capita annual payment, by the same methodology, is €229."

3) At the end of the 2 years (or earlier) if we stick to the Article 50 negotiations from what I understand.

4) VERY GOOD QUESTION - And I think it depends upon what the law is. Some Laws where we have abdicated responsibility to the EU will have to be re-written into UK Law. So IMO - what laws we ignore and when we ignore them will be down to our Government. - But I would ask that anyone with a better understanding of the Law please correct me if I am incorrect.

5) Re Immigration - again I think it will be over the 2 years as set out under Article 50. But interestingly I have also read that as soon as we instigate Article 50 then we are no longer EU members. So theoretically we could start the fabled "Australian Points system" virtually from day 1.

Originally Posted by Gman2

Yes - I work in an area that relies heavily on European cooperation on a daily basis so by your definition my role in contributing to this corrupt structure must also deemed to be suspect. I'm glad to say that I can look at myself in the mirror and be satisfied that I'm doing a fully transparent and accountable job as are my colleagues

It is hard to look objectively at something when your livelihood depends upon its existence I would suggest???????

[FLYER]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

Are the votes counted nationally so we even know that or are they put into one big pot?

Although the vote is UK WIDE the national figures will be published.