• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cameron's EU speech

Giz said:
But the initial referendum in the 1970's that took Britain into the EU was, deliberately, given as a purely economic union - with no transfer of sovereignty. (as opinion polls had shown that any possibly of sovereignty transfer would have resulted in a no vote).
Click to expand...
You mean your political leaders omitted important facts from your consideration? You were lied to? Did you not have public discussion about the matter?

I'd like to find more information about this. Could you recommend related history books or perhaps memoirs of relevant politicians?

Giz said:
As a result, a large proportion of the UK don't see any political union as legitimate -until there is an honest referendum.
Click to expand...
I can relate to that, here in Finland some opionate that joining €-zone would have needed a separate referendum. But I don't think so, when we had our refendum about joining EU it was very clear that membership also ment eventually joining Euro (I voted Yes and would have voted Yes for € too, and still support both memberships).
 
Didn't know where to put this but might be here as well.

A hero was decorated today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Nicholas_Gray

"Mark Nicholas Gray MBE is a Colonel in the British Royal Marines who stopped a disaster at the hydroelectric Peruća Dam[1][2][3] during the Croatian offensive of 27–28 January 1993 when he raised the spillway channel and reduced the level of water in the lake."


ETA: I have no connections to British Royal Marines but at one time (long ago) was a liaison officer on a Royal Navy warship. Good times, and how time flies.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Did he? I don't know because the Don talked of "the Eurozone" which we are not a part of.
Click to expand...

In my case it is the Eurozone. All of the non-UK business I do is with countries that have the Euro as their currency.

angrysoba said:
Also, if the Don's business were located in Norway or Switzerland, would he find it more difficult to do business with the Eurozone?
Click to expand...

If it continued to be as easy to do business with the EU then I suppose it wouldn't be an issue but the reports I hear are that in order to allow them to trade with the EU, countries like Norway have the same restrictions as EU countries but without the ability to influence the decision making process that creates these restrictions.

angrysoba said:
I am not asking for this to be compressed into a soundbite. It might be nice to see some reliable facts and figures, on the other hand. I sometimes get the impression that that too is difficult, and I can understand if it is. But if that is the case then it is not true that the EU is only looked at with a jaundiced eye by "moronic xenophobes".
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a very nuanced picture. In my case I feel that the legislation that other people find is too restrictive (like the working time directive or human rights legislation) has provided a much needed shove to UK legislators.

In the case of my business then:

  • If the UK is allowed to trade on the same basis as Norway then we will still have to abide by the same laws that people are suggesting are a reason to leave the EU without the ability to be able to influence those laws
  • If we withdraw entirely and it's significantly more difficult to trade with the EU then I will go out of business
 
The Don said:
In my case it is the Eurozone. All of the non-UK business I do is with countries that have the Euro as their currency.



If it continued to be as easy to do business with the EU then I suppose it wouldn't be an issue but the reports I hear are that in order to allow them to trade with the EU, countries like Norway have the same restrictions as EU countries but without the ability to influence the decision making process that creates these restrictions.



I agree, it's a very nuanced picture. In my case I feel that the legislation that other people find is too restrictive (like the working time directive or human rights legislation) has provided a much needed shove to UK legislators.

In the case of my business then:

  • If the UK is allowed to trade on the same basis as Norway then we will still have to abide by the same laws that people are suggesting are a reason to leave the EU without the ability to be able to influence those laws
  • If we withdraw entirely and it's significantly more difficult to trade with the EU then I will go out of business
Click to expand...

Hi Don,

Thanks for that post.

I understand the argument that Norway and Switzerland have to abide by certain rules and get no say in the matter of what those rules are, and yet I think that it amounts to a good deal for Norway given that they get a more favourable trade than, say, Japan or the US (or am I wrong about that). The issue of not getting a say is probably neither here nor there for most voters given that they probably don't think they get much of a say anyway.

ETA: One difference is whether or not Norway and Switzerland also have to pay large subsidies to other countries. Some people have posted that we pay more into Europe than we get out ("But Germany and France pay more!") and that this is off-set by trade. BUT, I would like to know whether or not our trade would be so adversely affected that we would be worse off when UK payments into Europe and the fall-off in trade are calculated or even whether or not this figure is known.


One worry is not so much the fact that European politicians can get to dictate policy for the UK, although that's not completely inconsiderable if you look at how Italy and Greece are rather hapless in the face of decisions made for them, but rather that UK politicians and other elites are handing over their responsibility. It gives them more time to do not much because all the decisions are being made elsewhere. I tend not to have much faith in most politicians doing the country much good anyway. The idea that they are heroically battling away in the European chambers of power for Britain's interests seems almost like fantasy, and bizarre when it is also said by one proponent at the top of the thread that it was also in our interests not to let the UK make ultimate judicial decisions.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba.

With regards to the "do we get more out in benefits than the net contribution to the EU budge question", we won't know until we leave the EU and by then if there is a large net benefit it'll be too late.

Upthread spin0 provided a nice graphic and some statistics around the UK net contibution. Depending on how you calculate it (whether you count UK contributions including taxes collected on behalf of the EU) it's between €5-7 bn or a little under 1% of government spending.

The benefits are almost impossible to calculate because it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what conditions would be in place in the event that the UK leaves the EU and what impact that would have with trading relations with the EU (and with the rest of the world).

For example, one of the reasons why the UK automotive sector is so buoyant is that we have access to the EU for export (which is why the Japanese manufacturers have set up here). If leaving the EU has no impact on our ability to export to the EU then it's likely that this will continue to thrive. If it does have an impact then Nissan at least could easily relocate elsewhere in Europe and maybe Honda and Toyota would follow.

For me, the economic argument is non-starter because to argue either case requires assumptions to be made which will be impossible to verify until after the fact. A pro-EU argument will assume a significant drop off in trade, an anti-EU argument will assume business as usual.

For me an argument that has more traction and which makes more sense to me is the sovereignty argument. Personally, I believe that being part of a liberal EU and having (for example) human rights legislation thrust upon us has been a good thing and has compelled us to move forwards. I can appreciate however that others do not like this and see it as a loss of sovereign powers.
 
The Don said:
angrysoba.

With regards to the "do we get more out in benefits than the net contribution to the EU budge question", we won't know until we leave the EU and by then if there is a large net benefit it'll be too late.

Upthread spin0 provided a nice graphic and some statistics around the UK net contibution. Depending on how you calculate it (whether you count UK contributions including taxes collected on behalf of the EU) it's between €5-7 bn or a little under 1% of government spending.

The benefits are almost impossible to calculate because it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what conditions would be in place in the event that the UK leaves the EU and what impact that would have with trading relations with the EU (and with the rest of the world).

For example, one of the reasons why the UK automotive sector is so buoyant is that we have access to the EU for export (which is why the Japanese manufacturers have set up here). If leaving the EU has no impact on our ability to export to the EU then it's likely that this will continue to thrive. If it does have an impact then Nissan at least could easily relocate elsewhere in Europe and maybe Honda and Toyota would follow.

For me, the economic argument is non-starter because to argue either case requires assumptions to be made which will be impossible to verify until after the fact. A pro-EU argument will assume a significant drop off in trade, an anti-EU argument will assume business as usual.

For me an argument that has more traction and which makes more sense to me is the sovereignty argument. Personally, I believe that being part of a liberal EU and having (for example) human rights legislation thrust upon us has been a good thing and has compelled us to move forwards. I can appreciate however that others do not like this and see it as a loss of sovereign powers.
Click to expand...

Hi Don,

What you say essentially accords with my own beliefs about the argument itself.

What I think is not useful is saying that anyone who even so much as wonders if greater political assimilation with the EU is a good idea is branded as a "moronic xenophobe".

As you say, I really don't think that we know whether or not the UK will benefit economically or not from being in or out of the EU. Being told by any Westminster politician that it does cuts absolutely no ice with me. That said, I don't believe people like UKIP/Farage know what they're talking about either.
 
angrysoba said:
What I think is not useful is saying that anyone who even so much as wonders if greater political assimilation with the EU is a good idea is branded as a "moronic xenophobe".
Click to expand...

I can appreciate this, and I guess your use of the term goes back to Mark Corrigan's comment that he doesn't trust his fellow countrymen not to be moronic xenophobes.

If someone has concerns based on economic or sovereignty issues which have a basis in fact then I would not brand them as such. If however someone bases their decision on a few soundbites produced by papers like the Daily Mail or Daily Express based on deliberate misinterpretations of the European legislation, half truths or outright lies based on their own distrust of "Johnny Foreigner" then I think that's a different matter.


Edited to add......

If people who are anti-EU get a referendum and want an "out" vote, all they need to do is remind everyone that if we're out of the EU then it'll allow us to get duty free when we go to France. I believe that enough people would be blinded by that one factor to swing the vote enough to carry the day. Forget all the wider economic arguments but allow us a £12 litre of gin and cigarettes at £3 a pack when we go on our holidays.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom