Merged Now What?

[Andy_Ross]

You don't get a say in the members of your cabinet either. When Teresa May feels like it, she may shuffle up the whole cabinet over the weekend.

We didn't get to pick May, our Prime Minister was chosen by Tory MPs.

 

[Lothian]

I say EEA, for all the moaning and groaning I see, nobody has a better suggestion.

In your opinion.Many leave voters don't want that option as it requires free movement of people. That was such a key part of the leave campaign it would be wrong to consider that option as delivering the will of the people.

 

[ddt]

Norway participates in the Nordic Battlegroup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battlegroup
It is also in Schengen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

I too cannot find the exact costs. I mentioned them because the EEA agreement does not require Norway to participate in those projects.

So you concede they're not part of the costs I cited, the EUR 860/year?

And you also concede that all those costs are obligatory per the EEA treaty?

And you also concede that, extrapolating those costs on basis of population, you get around the same amount of contributions the UK would have to pay as EEA member as it's currently paying for EU membership?

 

[ddt]

We didn't get to pick May, our Prime Minister was chosen by Tory MPs.

That's a good addition, with the caveat that the Tory membership would have had a vote if Andrea what's-her-name hadn't withdrawn at a lucky moment.

But it's worth stressing that, while in regular elections the populace gets sort-of to choose the PM - the leader of the winning party - that, once they're PM, they're a little dictator who can completely reshuffle on their own the cabinet on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

 

[Airfix]

The UK has about 120 ministers. The most you can do is vote against one and if the majority of voters in your area agree they are out of a post.

Already given an answer to this.

This is because the Prime minister chooses ministers as well as the EU commissioner. It really needs a change of government to radically change either. Of course there is nothing to stop the UK commissioner being elected. It is the UK government that chooses to take that option away from the people.

Like in Europe?

The EU isn't Europe. It's a political construct.

Just because you don't like minor parts of the EU system doesn't mean the whole system is flawed or unrepresentative.

And just because some people (who were outvoted on the 23rd of June) do like it, doesn't mean that the whole system is without flaws, it doesn't mean the whole system is representative either. It's got deep seated problems and there are still those on the Commission who wish to turn it into a federal superstate.

Euroskepticism is nothing new.
The former Europhile Lord Owen who campaigned to remain in the EEC in 1975 said 15 years later:

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport) : Is it not perfectly clear that what was being attempted at Rome was a bounce which led only one way-- to a single federal united states of Europe? Is it not vital that, in this House and across party lines, it should be possible for a Prime Minister to make it clear, if necessary, that Britain is prepared to stand alone? We should not relish it, but if we were faced with the imposition by treaty of a single currency and with a situation that prevented the enlargement of the Community to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, would not Britain be entitled and right to use the veto?

To which Margaret Thatcher said:

I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the stance that we took. It is the stance that we have taken on many previous occasions. The European monetary system to which we belong is designed for 12 sovereign states, in co-operation with one another, to come to an exchange rate mechanism. What is being proposed now- -economic and monetary union--is the back door to a federal Europe, which we totally and utterly reject. We prefer greater economic and monetary co- operation, which can be achieved by keeping our sovereignty.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-10-30/Debate-1.html

It was through her opposition to the Euro that Michael Heseltine stood against her and challenged her for the leadership.
He hadn't contemplated that Britain's participation in the ERM would cause an economic crash and a recession that would forever put us off joining the Euro.

 

[McHrozni]

But it's worth stressing that, while in regular elections the populace gets sort-of to choose the PM - the leader of the winning party - that, once they're PM, they're a little dictator who can completely reshuffle on their own the cabinet on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Reshuffling the cabinet is more fun than looking at a lemon tree, that's for sure.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's got deep seated problems

Which problems, that haven't been already thoroughly debated here and shown to be figments of imagination, are those, exactly?

The main problem the EU has is that too many people are too dumb to analyze it, and buy whatever anti-EU BS is offered to the by 'alternative' politicians, and in one case, a shaved orangutan.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But it's worth stressing that, while in regular elections the populace gets sort-of to choose the PM

'Sort of' indeed. In fact 'not really' is probably closer to the mark.

You sort-of elect your own MP. If you vote against them and lose then your vote was wasted.

You don't really elect the PM because as you say they are merely the leader of the party with the most MPs. And they could change it the day after the election if they wanted to.

This person then appoints their cronies to the Ministerial positions. They then set the policy.

The Commons votes on policy - with the party with a majority basically always winning so it's pretty much a waste of time 99% of the time. And then the unelected Lords rubber stamp it.

This whole democratic deficit stuff is nonsense peddled by people who are anti-EU regardless. It bears no scrutiny.

 

[Airfix]

So you concede they're not part of the costs I cited, the EUR 860/year?

And you also concede that all those costs are obligatory per the EEA treaty?

And you also concede that, extrapolating those costs on basis of population, you get around the same amount of contributions the UK would have to pay as EEA member as it's currently paying for EU membership?

You have provided evidence of expenditure by Norway, but insufficient evidence that those expenditures are totally mandatory.

Show me Iceland's individual contributions. Show me Leichtenstein's individual contributions.

Show me where in the EEA treaty it "requires" financial contributions to the same level as EU membership costs.

Show me an alternative to the EEA treaty.

EU membership is off the table because of the referendum. Going against the refendum would gravely damage British democracy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I say EEA, for all the moaning and groaning I see, nobody has a better suggestion.

If we're going to go EEA we might as well just stay in the EU. Either would be ignoring the will of the people who voted and being in the EU is clearly better than being in the EEA so why not just go the whole hog?

 

[McHrozni]

You have provided evidence of expenditure by Norway, but insufficient evidence that those expenditures are totally mandatory.

Actually I think it's you who should provide evidence the UK could reap the same (or comparable) benefits as Norway, but pay significantly less than Norway does. You're the one advocating the move, you provide the evidence. Since any such deal must necessarily be approved by a qualified majority of the EU, you need to provide evidence the UK would be able to secure what you're currently arguing "isn't proven beyond all doubt to be impossible".

EU membership is off the table because of the referendum. Going against the refendum would gravely damage British democracy.

Why? It's patently obvious the referendum was won by less than honest means, so why is upholding it, come hell or high water, considered a benchmark of democracy?

McHrozni

 

[Airfix]

Which problems

Only the EU Commission can negotiate your free trade deals if you're a member.
Only the EU Commission can decide whether or not you can grant tax breaks or state aid if you're a member. When the banking crisis happened, it took weeks of dealing with the EU Commission before we could bail out Northern Rock and other stricken banks.
In 1991 EU Directive 91/440 was created to make it a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access (running powers) on a European Union country's track.

British Rail was broken up, costs went up, quality of service went down.
The Rail Carriage works ABB at York went bust due to a lack of orders, because of uncertainties following privatisation.

The main problem the UK has is that too many people are too dumb to analyse the EU, and buy whatever pro-EU BS is offered to the by Europhile politicians.

Most of our trade is with the rest of the world despite tariffs.

Because of the EU we cannot do bilateral free trade agreements with other countries.

 

[Airfix]

Why? It's patently obvious the referendum was won by less than honest means, so why is upholding it, come hell or high water, considered a benchmark of democracy?

If remain had won the referendum it wouldn't have been won by honest means either, they lied through their teeth too my friend.

Both official campaigns were dreadful. Project fear vs Project fear.

Polls show that were another remain / leave referendum to be held the outcome would be the same.

So the next referendum needs to be, "Now What ?" not "What Was".

 

[Airfix]

If we're going to go EEA we might as well just stay in the EU. Either would be ignoring the will of the people who voted and being in the EU is clearly better than being in the EEA so why not just go the whole hog?

Being in the EEA lets you run your own tax system and have your own free trade deals, clearly better than being in the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

If remain had won the referendum it wouldn't have been won by honest means either, they lied through their teeth too my friend.

Evidence?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You have provided evidence of expenditure by Norway, but insufficient evidence that those expenditures are totally mandatory.

Show me Iceland's individual contributions. Show me Leichtenstein's individual contributions.

Show me where in the EEA treaty it "requires" financial contributions to the same level as EU membership costs.

Show me an alternative to the EEA treaty.

EU membership is off the table because of the referendum. Going against the refendum would gravely damage British democracy.

The EEA and Norway grants to EU members total about 2.8bn over the next 7 years. That's a bigger number already than your fictional cost of EEA membership. And that's just one thing.

Amazing that you consider remaining in the EU damaging but not joining the EEA and keeping free movement of people which was one of the biggest factors in people voting Out in the first place.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Being in the EEA lets you run your own tax system and have your own free trade deals, clearly better than being in the EU.

Nope.

The government runs their own tax system and leaving the EU would destroy existing trade deals already in force.

Your parroting of anti-EU propaganda isn't convincing.

 

[Airfix]

Evidence?

McHrozni

Here's an example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534192

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The main problem the UK has is that too many people are too dumb to analyse the EU,

This bit I agree with but not for the same reasons I imagine

 

[Airfix]

Nope.

The government runs their own tax system

Not fully http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0112

and leaving the EU would destroy existing trade deals already in force.

So what ?
One of those deals is with Morocco, a country which illegally occupies Western Sahara and created walls and sandberms and minefields to control the indigenous Saharawi people. I don't want tariff free trade or any trade with a human rights abusing government.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/morocco/index_en.htm