Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?

Ooh, ooh, wait, I know this one - our leaders are spineless yes-men, amirite? They all want EU positions (even though there's approximately one, maybe two, on offer every five years or so, and they always go to people who everyone else wants to get rid of, perhaps because they're comparatively worse paid than national positions).

Norwegian politicians, on the other hand, like Icelandic ones, are clear-eyed and manly, even the women. They fearlessly stand up to the EU by implementing all the EU legislation that's required of them without getting to vote on it first.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus

djpbarry wrote: »

But the big bad EU doesn't respect 'No' votes, remember? Why didn't they just force the Norwegians to vote again until they gave the "correct" answer?

Norway has voted twice on the issue. They weren't "forced" to by the EU; in each case the referendum was promoted by the Norwegian government, with the endorsement of the Norwegian parliament. (Bit like Ireland, come to think of it.)

Iceland has never voted on the subject. Iceland has applied for EU membership, on the strength of an affirmative vote in the Icelandic parliament. Currently, accession negotiations are suspended (by the Icelanders; the EU wants to continue them). The current Iceland government has said that it will not pursue negotiations unless there is first of all a referendum in favour of doing so, but in fact under Icelandic law the authority to pursue negotiations rests with parliament, not with the government, and there can be no referendum (on any topic) without parliamentary approval. The result is a dispute within Iceland over whether EU accession should be subject to parliamentary approval (the position, unsurprisingly, of the parliament) or to approval in a referendum (the position of the government). It's entirely possible that the Icelanders will determine the question of EU membership, one way or the other, without any referendum.

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reverse, actually. If our vote wasn't respected there'd be no need to hold a second referendum, they'd just go ahead anyway.

What you mean is that you'd like the first result set in stone because that was the result you liked.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

Peregrinus

sin_city wrote: »

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

You miss the point. It's the Irish authorities who decide whether to have referendums, and whether to have them again if they consider the first result to be not in the national interest. We've had two referendums on a number of issues - the single transferrable vote, divorce, the Treaty of Nice, the Treaty of Lisbon. And of course we've had several referendums on abortion - by my count, five, including two on the specific question of the risk of suicide as a ground for abortion.

In every case it's an Irish government decision, ratified by the Oireachtas, to hold a referendum; nobody forces us to.

(And, if you stick to the principal that "you don't vote twice until you get the result you want", we'd still have a constitutional prohibition on divorce in Ireland. Is that really the outcome you want?)

sin_city

Just out of interest....how much time was between the non EU related referenda in comparison to the EU related ones?

When I saw more than once, what I really mean is more than one in a single year or less.

Do you see the difference and the implied pressure coming from outside the country?

If not, then yes...Everything in life is black and white

Peregrinus

Yes, where the issue is EU related, a second referendum tends to follow fairly soon after the first; about sixteen months after, in the case of the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

But that doesn't mean improper pressure is being applied externally. The EU is a co-operative venture between 27 states; when they've made a decision that they want to do something in which, because of our own domestic law, we have to endorse by referendum if we are to participate, then they're not going to hang around for ever waiting for us to organise repeated referendums. If we are to do this, we have to do it with them, and they are ready to do it now.

Does that put us under pressure? Yes. Is it an improper pressure? No. If you're invited to party this Friday, you can't say that you don't want to decide about accepting until next November, and you're being put under improper pressure.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

If they respected the vote, then there would not have been a need for a second vote to get the "correct" response from Irish voters.

You don't vote twice until you get the result you want.

You can dress it up any way you like.

The second vote was different from the first vote. Therefore, the Irish public had changed its mind after the first vote. Why do you want that to be discounted? On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Peregrinus wrote: »

Norway has voted twice on the issue.

Sure, but the referenda were over 20 years apart, so that probably doesn’t fit into sin_city’s narrative of the EU forcing repeat votes.

SpaceTime

We did get some protocols and reassurances though. So it was sort of a negotiation with the electorate.

Nothing was stopping us just voting No twice.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

We did get some protocols and reassurances though. So it was sort of a negotiation with the electorate.

Nothing was stopping us just voting No twice.

That's the essential point. The government is free to ask the same question, and the electorate is free to return the same answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

Well, yes. The government wanted to ratify the treaty, otherwise it wouldn't have called a referendum in the first place.

SpaceTime

We did extract some concessions though.

In effect we actually forced lofty commissioners to actually negotiate with the electorate.

That's no bad thing really is it?

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Wonder why there was no third vote? Just to make sure like. Probably where happy to accept the second answer more than the first?

As oscarBravo says, the government wanted to ratify the Treaty, which is why it held the second referendum. If the Irish public hadn't changed its mind, then they still couldn't have ratified the Treaty, and I doubt they'd have run a third referendum.

Both referendums were held in the knowledge that the government would ratify once it got a Yes. That was the point - it's not as if the public were being asked only for their opinion, they were being asked for permission, and the public having given it, the government used that permission to do what they wanted to do.

As such, a third referendum would be constitutional nonsense, because referendums provide legally binding outcomes on which the executive can (and will) act - they're not opinion polls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

We did extract some concessions though.

In effect we actually forced lofty commissioners to actually negotiate with the electorate.

That's no bad thing really is it?

Well....first, it's not the Commissioners, but the other Member States, because the Commission doesn't negotiate the EU Treaties. Hence our concessions coming in the form of a Council resolution.

Second, most of the concessions were just statements that the Treaty didn't do things that it didn't do, but which the No side claimed it would. The No side then rubbished the concessions as empty, which tells you that they either knew their claims were false, or didn't care whether they were or not.

The one functional concession we got, keeping 1 Commissioner per country for the moment, is actually a surprisingly large and meaningful one - it makes the Commission and the EU less efficient by requiring responsibilities to be divided up between 28 people, so the meaning isn't positive as such, but still, it's quite a big concession.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

A few commissioners did turn up during the last referendum though!

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the essential point. The government is free to ask the same question, and the electorate is free to return the same answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I cannot believe you are so blind.

The electorate's response would be fine for the government with the pressure coming from Brussels, as long as it was a YES.

That is total lack of respect for our initial vote.

Dumb Irish, they got it wrong.....Let's run it again Paddy.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

I cannot believe you are so blind.

The electorate's response would be fine for the government with the pressure coming from Brussels, as long as it was a YES.

That is total lack of respect for our initial vote.

Dumb Irish, they got it wrong.....Let's run it again Paddy.

I don't think this word 'respect' means what you think it means. Or possibly you're hazy on the concept of democracy. Let me put it to you again:

The second result was different from the first result. Therefore, the Irish public had changed its mind after the first vote. The government didn't overturn the vote. The EU didn't overturn the vote. No shadowy cabal overturned the vote. The Irish public overturned its own vote. Why do you want that to be discounted? On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

On what basis would you deny the Irish public the outcome of their changed opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

None, I would have liked to see the Treaty have another vote within the 3 to 4 month period of the prior. Then I think accepting 2 Yes votes would be more acceptable.

I'd like to see a referendum on membership of the EU for all EU members on a yearly basis.

Back on topic, when are the British getting their vote?

Hopefully this federal super state idea can go away and we can concentrate on trade treaties with individual countries and not limit ourselves to debt ridden Europe.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

None, I would have liked to see the Treaty have another vote within the 3 to 4 month period of the prior. Then I think accepting 2 Yes votes would be more acceptable.

Which misses the point of a referendum by treating it as some kind of opinion poll. Referendums produce legally meaningful outcomes.

sin_city wrote: »

I'd like to see a referendum on membership of the EU for all EU members on a yearly basis.

I suspect you will be perpetually disappointed there. Such referendums would rapidly dwindle to a see-saw between the committed pro and anti voters and nobody else.

sin_city wrote: »

Back on topic, when are the British getting their vote?

2017 if it happens.

sin_city wrote: »

Hopefully this federal super state idea can go away and we can concentrate on trade treaties with individual countries and not limit ourselves to debt ridden Europe.

Because we'd get so much better a deal as a tiny market of 4.25m people than as part of a market of 500m? Mm, no.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

There are plenty of countries who participate in the single market without taking part in the political arrangements. Switzerland, Montenegro, The Channel Islands, Macedonia, San Marino and Iceland, to name some.

If Britain opts for something similar, its possible one or two other members might want to follow suit. That might be the most sensible solution, to let those who want their futures bound together politically to do that, and to leave the others who do not want to be politically bound together, such as the countries above.

Peregrinus

I'm not sure that Britain would want to class itself, in economic and diplomatic terms, along with Montenegro, San Marino and the Channel Islands!

It is possible to participate in the single market while remaining outside the EU; the European Economic Area is a vehicle for doing precisely that, and the possiblity of the UK joining the EEA has already been canvassed in this thread. This would class them with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway rather than with SM and the Channel Islands.

But there's a cost to doing so; almost total loss of influence over the shape and direction of the single market. EEA members have to observe all the requirements of EU law relevant to the single market, but have practically no say in the formation of that law. That might be acceptable to a small country that would have little influence in the EU anyway; I honestly can't see it as being hugely attractive to the UK.

Besides, if someone's reason for wanting out of the EU is because they want Britain to be able to control immigration independently, for instance, or because they believe that EU economic regulation is too prescriptive, then they don't want to be in the single market either. From their point of view, EEA membership would be pretty much the worst of all worlds.

In reality, are the advocates of UK withdrawal from the EU also advocating continued participation in the single market, through EEA membership? Does anybody know the UKIP position on this? Or the Tory Eurosceptic position?

Boroso

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure that Britain would want to class itself, in economic and diplomatic terms, along with Montenegro, San Marino and the Channel Islands!

I don’t think anyone knows, which is why they are proposing to have a referendum.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is possible to participate in the single market while remaining outside the EU; the European Economic Area is a vehicle for doing precisely that, and the possiblity of the UK joining the EEA has already been canvassed in this thread. This would class them with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway rather than with SM and the Channel Islands.

Call it renegotiation or EFTA, call it Brexit or EEA-lite, can call it privileged-partnership, call it associate status or call it Montenotte O’Sullivan the third. Call it by whatever name you will, wouldn't it leave everyone happier?

Peregrinus

Boroso wrote: »

Call it renegotiation or EFTA, call it Brexit or EEA-lite, can call it privileged-partnership, call it associate status or call it Montenotte O’Sullivan the third. Call it by whatever name you will, wouldn't it leave everyone happier?

Not if their purpose in seeking withdrawal is to enable the UK to keep all those nasty foreigners out. Or to ignore all those "straight banana" regulations that they believe to emanate from Brussels in an endless stream. Or to stop contributing to the EU budget. (Yes, Virginia, EEA members contribute to the EU budget.)

gallag

What is so wrong with having free trade deals without becoming a single political entity? Why do we need the bureaucrat Brussels? Can it not be as simple as "wee will not tax imports from your country an you return the favour" who is benefiting from these additional layers of integration when all we really want is to sell each other stuff?

Boroso

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not if their purpose in seeking withdrawal is to enable the UK to keep all those nasty foreigners out. Or to ignore all those "straight banana" regulations that they believe to emanate from Brussels in an endless stream. Or to stop contributing to the EU budget. (Yes, Virginia, EEA members contribute to the EU budget.)

This post appears to tell us more about your individual prejudices and tells us nothing about the UK.

gallag wrote: »

What is so wrong with having free trade deals without becoming a single political entity? Why do we need the bureaucrat Brussels? Can it not be as simple as "wee will not tax imports from your country an you return the favour" who is benefiting from these additional layers of integration when all we really want is to sell each other stuff?

There is nothing wrong with wanting that, just as there is nothing wrong with wanting deeper political union between countries either.

It seems to me that there may be two Europes emerging, with some wanting deeper ever increasing political union, and others preferring to opt out of that but retain some sort of formal trading arrangement.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

What is so wrong with having free trade deals without becoming a single political entity? Why do we need the bureaucrat Brussels? Can it not be as simple as "wee will not tax imports from your country an you return the favour" who is benefiting from these additional layers of integration when all we really want is to sell each other stuff?

The Member States are benefiting from it - otherwise they wouldn't do it. There's more to living cheek by jowl, as the EU states do, than just selling each other stuff. That's why the EU isn't just a free trade area.

Even the UK government wants more out of the EU than just a free trade area - every UK government has, whatever their political bent.

As to the bureaucracy - first, it's a very small bureaucracy. If the UK's civil service were of an equivalent size, it would be about 5,000 permanent civil servants and maybe another 10,000 agency staff.

Second, the rules it creates are joint rules - primarily trade regulations - which take the place of 28 equivalent sets of rules. In their absence, there would be as many different compliance targets as there were European countries you wanted to deal with as export/import partners.

Third, there's a lot more to a single market than just a tariff free area. Most countries wouldn't be prepared to open their markets to the country next door if the country next door makes cheaper products in every category through the use of slave labour and dodgy parts/ingredients.

As to political union - as far as I know, none of the Member States is interested in becoming part of a federal USE, which means that it won't happen. Political union is important in the sense of joint decision-making methods because the states are making decisions jointly. A purely intergovernmental system rapidly becomes like the League of Nations or the UN, blocked on nearly any meaningful action.

But none of these points are really part of the UK's debate thus far, which does seem to be revolving around immigration and 'free movement'. Unfortunately, that's one where importing from the EU is pretty clearly and provably beneficial, while importing from the former Commonwealth appears not to be so, so it seems likely that from that perspective it's an extended exercise in foot-shooting.

As the debate progresses, what's happening is that businesses which benefit from the EU, and know they do, but who are usually silent on the subject, are waking up to the fact that for the first time in a generation there's a real risk of the UK exiting the EU, and they're beginning to put their mouths where their money is.

Finally, on the subject of the EEA - the UK founded EFTA as an alternative to the EEC, but almost every country preferred EEC membership, including the UK. Possibly things have changed sufficiently so that that's no longer the case. At the time, the idea was that the UK would concentrate on the Commonwealth instead, which didn't work, but perhaps it will now, although those ties are rather more distant even if the countries concerned are more prosperous. But as Peregrinus has pointed out, EEA membership changes very little in terms of either free movement or trade regulations - the main changes would be agriculture and fisheries, which isn't going to be very noticeable to most people in the UK, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

sin_city wrote: »

The electorate's response would be fine for the government with the pressure coming from Brussels, as long as it was a YES.

So why hasn’t Norway had a referendum on EU membership since 1994? Why would the EU apply so much pressure to Ireland (allegedly), but not to Norway?

djpbarry

Peregrinus wrote: »

In reality, are the advocates of UK withdrawal from the EU also advocating continued participation in the single market, through EEA membership? Does anybody know the UKIP position on this? Or the Tory Eurosceptic position?

They don’t have a rational position. Their opposition to British membership of the EU is based almost entirely on nationalism and xenophobia – there is no reasonable economic argument.

djpbarry

Boroso wrote: »

I don’t think anyone knows, which is why they are proposing to have a referendum.

Of course we know. An in/out referendum on EU membership would result in the UK electorate voting overwhelmingly in favour of EU withdrawal. Which is why the referendum will never happen – it would be a formality.

Boroso wrote: »

It seems to me that there may be two Europes emerging, with some wanting deeper ever increasing political union, and others preferring to opt out of that but retain some sort of formal trading arrangement.

Trade agreements necessitate some degree of political union – you can’t have one without the other.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

What is so wrong with having free trade deals without becoming a single political entity? Why do we need the bureaucrat Brussels?

There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s a hell of a lot more cumbersome. Why replace a single multilateral agreement with hundreds of bi-lateral agreements? How would that result in less bureaucracy?

Boroso

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course we know. An in/out referendum on EU membership would result in the UK electorate voting overwhelmingly in favour of EU withdrawal. Which is why the referendum will never happen – it would be a formality.

I think the world has moved on from when denying populations a democratic voice was thought to be both desirable, and possible. I applaud your conviction in your own predictions.

djpbarry wrote: »

Trade agreements necessitate some degree of political union – you can’t have one without the other.

It's the matter of degree which is very much the question. Switzerland, Montenegro, The Channel Islands, Macedonia, San Marino, Iceland & Norway seem to have more the degree of political union with the EU that might appeal to many in the UK, end elsewhere.

djpbarry

Boroso wrote: »

I think the world has moved on from when denying populations a democratic voice was thought to be both desirable, and possible. I applaud your conviction in your own predictions.

You’re missing my point entirely. Everyone and their dog knows that the UK is increasingly anti-EU. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows support for EU withdrawal. Considering that referenda in the UK are not legally binding and considering that the result of any such referendum would be a foregone conclusion, what would be the point of having one? If Dave and his cabinet decide to hold a referendum, they are essentially sanctioning withdrawal. But they won’t hold a referendum, because they know that EU withdrawal would be disastrous for the UK. If the British electorate believe that they are being denied some democratic voice, they can elect UKIP at the next general election.

Boroso wrote: »

It's the matter of degree which is very much the question. Switzerland, Montenegro, The Channel Islands, Macedonia, San Marino, Iceland & Norway seem to have more the degree of political union with the EU that might appeal to many in the UK, end elsewhere.

Sure – they have to follow all the same rules without having any influence on the formulation of those rules. That’s not what the UK wants at all. They want to retain their current level of influence while picking and choosing which rules they have to abide by.

Boroso

djpbarry wrote: »

considering that the result of any such referendum would be a foregone conclusion, what would be the point of having one?

Democracy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure – they have to follow all the same rules without having any influence on the formulation of those rules. That’s not what the UK wants at all.

Again I am impressed in your staunch conviction you know what the UK electorate wants, at the same time as appearing to say that you don't think they should be allowed a referendum to express what they might want.

In fact, if you look at the polls right across Europe, its not just the UK which is expressing a desire for change, and the sort of double think you seem to be expressing here, for example claiming to know what others want and trying to deny them a chance to express their actual desires through the ballot box, seems to many in the UK, and across the democratic world, to be a perfect analogy of why they want to vote to regain control over their own democracy.

There is no right, or desire, which is more legitimate than that.

djpbarry

Boroso wrote: »

Democracy.

Ah yes. That oft used and abused term.

Boroso wrote: »

Again I am impressed in your staunch conviction you know what the UK electorate wants...

Why is it so unreasonable? I’ve yet to see a recent poll of the UK electorate that shows a majority supports EU membership.

Boroso wrote: »

...at the same time as appearing to say that you don't think they should be allowed a referendum to express what they might want.

I don’t see the point in wasting money asking a question to which we already know the answer, no.

Just because Ireland holds referenda on every sodding thing to do with the EU, doesn’t mean everyone else has to. The Irish flavour of democracy is not the example to which everyone else should aspire.

Boroso wrote: »

In fact, if you look at the polls right across Europe, its not just the UK which is expressing a desire for change, and the sort of double think you seem to be expressing here, for example claiming to know what others want and trying to deny them a chance to express their actual desires through the ballot box, seems to many in the UK, and across the democratic world, to be a perfect analogy of why they want to vote to regain control over their own democracy.

I think you’re deliberately missing my point at this stage, just so you can accuse me of being anti-democratic. The UK electorate have plenty of control of their own democracy and if EU withdrawal is really that big an issue for them (it really isn’t), then they can elect UKIP to do the necessary.

Boroso

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t see the point in wasting money asking a question to which we already know the answer, no.

The point is democracy.

The ideological drive for an EU superstate peaked in the mid 2000’s, and since then it has been on the downhill trajectory.The UK is only one of many countries who no longer find the idea of an EU superstate attractive.


The Eurosceptics are winning the arguments in many European countries, and their star is in the ascendant as many ordinary Europeans add to the numbers of Eurosceptics, as evidenced in regular polls across Europe.

Out of control debt across many of what are known as the southern countries, and the incompetence of the EU authorities in introducing deflation, seems to ensure a chronic crises which will endure, and serves to reduce political consent from the people of Europe for an EU superstate.

Italy’s debt to GDP has increased from 119% to 132% of GDP in just three years, and it looks as if that increase is going to continue, which puts Italian debt on an unsustainable course. Greece’s debt is currently 170% of GDP and we will see the effects of that on the Euro in the coming years also.

The whole project holds less and less attraction for Europe’s nation states, both politically and at a grass roots level, and the will to build an EU superstate declines amongst the politicians and the people of Europe.

Rather than being out of step with Europe, the UK is more and more in step, and it’s hard from this vantage point to see the circumstances where agreement can ever be achieved to go further down the road of an EU superstate.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote:

Rather than being out of step with Europe, the UK is more and more in step

Which it will prove by leaving because it can't get what it wants?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which it will prove by leaving because it can't get what it wants?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

I know you are puzzled and can't understand anyone who has any criticisms of the EU and does not wish to proceed down the road to closer and closer political union - your posts here show that.

However, the tide has gone out on that idea across Europe, both in political circles and, more importantly, in increasing Euroscepticism amongst the people right across Europe.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

I know you are puzzled and can't understand anyone who has any criticisms of the EU and does not wish to proceed down the road to closer and closer political union - your posts here show that.

However, the tide has gone out on that idea across Europe, both in political circles and, more importantly, in increasing Euroscepticism amongst the people right across Europe.

Why not engage with what people say, instead of just parroting slogans and claiming everyone who contradicts you is a blind ideologue? You're not even correct - I'm actually a supporter of limited political union as appropriate to the competences granted to the EU joint action framework by the sovereign states, but I guess that's a bit nuanced, perhaps. You're in danger of seeing blues under every bed, I think.

Aside from anything else, we've been over the problem with assuming that the current dissatisfaction with the EU is some kind of meaningful trend that can be extrapolated to a glorious new dawn of nationhood. If that were the case, surely you should extrapolate the same increased dissatisfaction with national governments and parliaments towards a universal dissolution of the establishment.

Do you honestly not see anything contradictory about your claim that the UK is in step with Europe, and wants to leave it? And can you really not see why the UK government (and industry) might not want to leave?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

What I don't understand though is why people seem to think that the UK could leave and just continue to have 100% access to the EU single market from outside.

A lot of major companies are getting quite nervous about the prospect that it may no longer have the kind of direct and open access that it currently enjoys.

Unilever:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/unilever-warning-uk-withdrawal-european-union

Nissan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10434906/Nissan-We-may-quit-Britain-if-it-leaves-EU.html
Cars in general : http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bbcd386-7f89-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2r9NUJkRg

Citi Bank Group:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/22/us-britain-eu-citigroup-idUSBREA0L00U20140122

Bankers in general:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/919532a2-82ce-11e3-9d7e-00144feab7de.html#axzz2r9NUJkRg

There are a *LOT* of very nervous companies that are not too keen on this move at all.
It's genuinely causing a lot of concern and may even halt or at least hamper investment by some companies until they know what the consequences are.

I think you're going to see a lot of business and big corporate voices becoming louder on this issue in the coming months.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

What I don't understand though is why people seem to think that the UK could leave and just continue to have 100% access to the EU single market from outside.

A lot of major companies are getting quite nervous about the prospect that it may no longer have the kind of direct and open access that it currently enjoys.

Unilever:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/unilever-warning-uk-withdrawal-european-union

Nissan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10434906/Nissan-We-may-quit-Britain-if-it-leaves-EU.html
Cars in general : http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bbcd386-7f89-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2r9NUJkRg

Citi Bank Group:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/22/us-britain-eu-citigroup-idUSBREA0L00U20140122

Bankers in general:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/919532a2-82ce-11e3-9d7e-00144feab7de.html#axzz2r9NUJkRg

There are a *LOT* of very nervous companies that are not too keen on this move at all.
It's genuinely causing a lot of concern and may even halt or at least hamper investment by some companies until they know what the consequences are.

I think you're going to see a lot of business and big corporate voices becoming louder on this issue in the coming months.

The UK's car industry and the Airbus consortium have come out against exit recently as well:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bbcd386-7f89-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/airbus-citi-join-corporate-choru-news-532929

But presumably they're blind europhiles as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why not engage with what people say, instead of just parroting slogans and claiming everyone who contradicts you is a blind ideologue?

It’s interesting you claim I said something I didn’t say. You said you were puzzled, and it seems to me you are genuinely puzzled by those who don’t want to proceed towards a federal superstate.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're not even correct - I'm actually a supporter of limited political union as appropriate to the competences granted to the EU joint action framework by the sovereign states, but I guess that's a bit nuanced, perhaps. You're in danger of seeing blues under every bed, I think.

Sometimes here on these threads any view which is not in support of the Euro, of the EU, or progress to a federal superstate, seems to attract lots of posts by others who simply can’t accept anyone has view which is different to theirs. I am pointing out that the idea of a federal EU superstate seems to be an idea whose time is past, as evidenced not only by the growing Euroscepticism amongst the people across Europe, but also amongst the political classes.

Others may disagree and think it’s all a flash in the pan, or not, and I don’t expect anyone to agree nor do I seek agreement.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Aside from anything else, we've been over the problem with assuming that the current dissatisfaction with the EU is some kind of meaningful trend that can be extrapolated to a glorious new dawn of nationhood. If that were the case, surely you should extrapolate the same increased dissatisfaction with national governments and parliaments towards a universal dissolution of the establishment.

Of course, you could be right and I could be wrong. Or vice versa. In fact, there is a renaissance in interest in national politics as the consensus politics of the last 20 years is challenged, and politics once again offers a choice. Previously the choice was between socialism and capitalism, now the choice is between closer integration of the EU, or not as evidenced in new parties polling well across Europe (UKIP being the UK example).

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you honestly not see anything contradictory about your claim that the UK is in step with Europe, and wants to leave it? And can you really not see why the UK government (and industry) might not want to leave?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The polls right across Europe show that the growing Euroscepticism suggest that many Europeans are more and more agreeing with the UK. To me, Europe is its people.

The decision to leave the political EU is not a decision for grocers or motor manufacturers. In every country of the EU that’s a decision for the people, who will no doubt take into account what their industry representatives say as part of that process.

The UK is part of Europe and can’t ever leave it any more than France or Latvia can.

No government, or industry representatives, have the power or ability to trump the will of the electorate, and any government, or industry, which thinks otherwise should learn the lessons of history which, time and time again, show that is not the case.

I don’t expect you to agree to any, or all, of that.

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK's car industry and the Airbus consortium have come out against exit recently as well:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bbcd386-7f89-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/airbus-citi-join-corporate-choru-news-532929

But presumably they're blind europhiles as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am sure the UK electorate will take that into account when deciding how to vote in any ballot. Its one factor in many which they will probably use to weigh up their minds.

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

It’s interesting you claim I said something I didn’t say. You said you were puzzled, and it seems to me you are genuinely puzzled by those who don’t want to proceed towards a federal superstate.

I'm not even slightly puzzled, since I am one of the people who doesn't want a federal superstate. That you keep claiming I want one is evidence that you're not engaging with what I'm actually saying, and I admit I'm a little bored these days of being called on to defend a position I don't hold by people who aren't bothered to recognise my real position, or are perhaps incapable of addressing such a position.

Boroso wrote: »

Sometimes here on these threads any view which is not in support of the Euro, of the EU, or progress to a federal superstate, seems to attract lots of posts by others who simply can’t accept anyone has view which is different to theirs. I am pointing out that the idea of a federal EU superstate seems to be an idea whose time is past, as evidenced not only by the growing Euroscepticism amongst the people across Europe, but also amongst the political classes.

Others may disagree and think it’s all a flash in the pan, or not, and I don’t expect anyone to agree nor do I seek agreement.

It's not an idea whose time has ever come, to be honest. There are people who have wanted it all along, but they've never been in a majority, it's never been the plan, and it's not what 'ever closer union' means.

Boroso wrote: »

Of course, you could be right and I could be wrong. Or vice versa. In fact, there is a renaissance in interest in national politics as the consensus politics of the last 20 years is challenged, and politics once again offers a choice. Previously the choice was between socialism and capitalism, now the choice is between closer integration of the EU, or not as evidenced in new parties polling well across Europe (UKIP being the UK example).

Except that those parties in the main poll well only in EU Parliament elections, which suggests pro/anti EU is an axis that barely registers at the national political level, not something that has replaced a left-right divide.

I mean, OK, I feel fairly strongly about the EU, and you do too. But most people, let's face it, don't. Actually, you probably feel more strongly about it than I do, because while I presume you would celebrate if it were abolished tomorrow, I wouldn't cry or even be particularly downcast, although I would be very surprised.

Boroso wrote: »

The polls right across Europe show that the growing Euroscepticism suggest that many Europeans are more and more agreeing with the UK. To me, Europe is its people.

Not really, because there aren't really polls showing a 'growing euroscepticism' but a loss of faith. They're not actually the same thing, although I can see why you would want to believe they are.

Boroso wrote: »

The decision to leave the political EU is not a decision for grocers or motor manufacturers. In every country of the EU that’s a decision for the people, who will no doubt take into account what their industry representatives say as part of that process.

People are grocers and motor manufacturers, and vice versa. The 'nation of shopkeepers' above all, perhaps.

Boroso wrote: »

The UK is part of Europe and can’t ever leave it any more than France or Latvia can.

Latvia's only just back, unless you mean, rather tritely, the geographical area. But who would bother saying that?

Boroso wrote: »

No government, or industry representatives, have the power or ability to trump the will of the electorate, and any government, or industry, which thinks otherwise should learn the lessons of history which, time and time again, show that is not the case.

I don’t expect you to agree to any, or all, of that.

I don't, purely because it's sloganeering rather than analysis. "The people" are not something that exists separate from their own interests. There is no historical tide here, but a debate one side of which has only just started putting its case, while the other has been a staple of UK media for years.

You believe that you're expressing or channeling the will of the British people, and you believe that people outside Britain believe the same as you. So zealots always believe, but the real test is the ballot box. Unlike djpbarry and you, I don't believe a UK referendum is a foregone conclusion. I think it's all to play for, because I think reality disagrees with your slogans.

Boroso wrote: »

I am sure the UK electorate will take that into account when deciding how to vote in any ballot. Its one factor in many which they will probably use to weigh up their minds.

Well, obviously. Although it doesn't appear to be something you're personally likely to use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

djpbarry wrote: »

So why hasn’t Norway had a referendum on EU membership since 1994? Why would the EU apply so much pressure to Ireland (allegedly), but not to Norway?

Because Norway is not in the EU.

If it ever joined it would have to take orders from Brussels...same way Greece and Ireland got pushed around with the bailouts....sorta like that.

Iceland non-EU....maybe this is why they stood up to the bankers?

Anyway, once you're in the present EU...not the common market we joined in 1973, I mean the present EU which is moving towards a superstate, this EU runs the show....Our republic is dying.

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK's car industry and the Airbus consortium have come out against exit recently as well:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9bbcd386-7f89-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/airbus-citi-join-corporate-choru-news-532929

But presumably they're blind europhiles as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wonder how FIAT managed to get going in Serbia without EU membership...Incredible.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which misses the point of a referendum by treating it as some kind of opinion poll. Referendums produce legally meaningful outcomes.

Which is why they are run until the EU which pressurizes the Irish government gets the result it wants. Meaningful would be one time. Anything else is opinion poll stuff as you said.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because we'd get so much better a deal as a tiny market of 4.25m people than as part of a market of 500m? Mm, no.

Really? Why don't we just sign one trade deal with China and we've already doubled our market size?

Think about the countries that are doing well today: Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and of course the BRICS.

They don't limit themselves to joining one group.

By what you are saying I take it that you would like a world union so that we could have access to the whole world?

oscarBravo

sin_city wrote: »

Which is why they are run until the EU which pressurizes the Irish government gets the result it wants.

If you're going to keep repeating that, you're going to have to come up with some evidence for it.

Think about the countries that are doing well today: Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and of course the BRICS.

I was in Chile (my fourth visit there) last week. It's doing OK by South American standards, but we're doing a lot better.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

Wonder how FIAT managed to get going in Serbia without EU membership...Incredible.

Selling low cost cars into the Balkans, afaik. Despite the low labour costs, they didn't sell over the tariff wall into the EU. I don't think the UK car industry desperately wants to break into the Balkan market - well, or what remains of it, given 2 countries are in the EU and Serbia is starting accession talks.

sin_city wrote: »

Which is why they are run until the EU which pressurizes the Irish government gets the result it wants. Meaningful would be one time. Anything else is opinion poll stuff as you said.

No, the outcome is legally meaningful, and would be if a third poll was run, unless it was treated as a 'best of three' exercise as suggested. Again, the electorate votes, and it cannot be forced to vote one way or the other - what's your reason for setting aside the legitimacy of the second result?

sin_city wrote: »

Really? Why don't we just sign one trade deal with China and we've already doubled our market size?

Think about the countries that are doing well today: Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and of course the BRICS.

They don't limit themselves to joining one group.

What exactly would lead China to give us such a deal? Access to our market?

sin_city wrote: »

By what you are saying I take it that you would like a world union so that we could have access to the whole world?

We already have the WTO, and if we're to have such a body, I would certainly favour a bit of 'political union' to provide rather more direct control and rather less opacity on its negotiations. Would you be opposed to such control?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

Selling low cost cars into the Balkans, afaik. Despite the low labour costs, they didn't sell over the tariff wall into the EU. I don't think the UK car industry desperately wants to break into the Balkan market - well, or what remains of it, given 2 countries are in the EU and Serbia is starting accession talks.

Lol, you totally missed the point. These cars which are being made in Serbia are being sold already in the UK. They are on sale to over 100 countries.

If Serbia were to get closer to anyone it should be Russia in my opinion as they have cultural, linguistic and historical ties. However I'm sure they are happy to have trade agreements with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland as is now, as well as good relations with Russia and also many many other countries.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, the outcome is legally meaningful, and would be if a third poll was run, unless it was treated as a 'best of three' exercise as suggested. Again, the electorate votes, and it cannot be forced to vote one way or the other - what's your reason for setting aside the legitimacy of the second result?

My reason? The first result. What's your reason for setting aside the legitimacy of the first result?

Scofflaw wrote: »

What exactly would lead China to give us such a deal? Access to our market?

I suppose the same thing that lead them to a deal with the following:

• New Zealand
• Peru
• Singapore
• Chile
• Costa Rica

Couldn't Ireland be added to that list? Probably not? We're stuck with the likes of Greece and Romania.

New Zealand

Signed a free trade agreement with China in 2008.



Peru

Signed a free trade agreement with China in 2009.




Singapore

Has been trading with China since 1990s



Yes that's nearly 20% GDP growth in one quarter

Chile

Signed free trade agreement with China in 2006. Also has free trade agreements with the US, Australia, Mexico and the EU!

I don't know if you agree with us trading with Chile or not.
Guess what? It was decided by an Irishman on the EU side, but it sure as heck was decided by a person from Chile on their side.

Well done Chile..Not bad growth either



Costa Rica

Trade agreement with China since 2002. As with others, does not limit itself to a bloc. Has trade agreements with Canada, the US, Mexico and Peru to name a few. I believe on the Costa Rican side only Costa Ricans were involved with their deals. I'd love this luxury for Ireland.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We already have the WTO, and if we're to have such a body, I would certainly favour a bit of 'political union' to provide rather more direct control and rather less opacity on its negotiations. Would you be opposed to such control?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok, so you're in favour of world government. Enough said. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

Lol, you totally missed the point. These cars which are being made in Serbia are being sold already in the UK. They are on sale to over 100 countries.

If Serbia were to get closer to anyone it should be Russia in my opinion as they have cultural, linguistic and historical ties. However I'm sure they are happy to have trade agreements with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland as is now, as well as good relations with Russia and also many many other countries.

Well, yes, they've had a free trade agreement with the EU since 2008.

sin_city wrote: »

My reason? The first result. What's your reason for setting aside the legitimacy of the first result?

That the people changed their minds and delivered a second result. They could have said no again, and didn't. How is the will of the people in the second referendum somehow less legitimate?

sin_city wrote: »

I suppose the same thing that lead them to a deal with the following:

• New Zealand
• Peru
• Singapore
• Chile
• Costa Rica

Couldn't Ireland be added to that list? Probably not? We're stuck with the likes of Greece and Romania.

Hardly: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/150129.htm

Are you under the impression that free trade agreements simply involve both parties saying "OK no tariffs mutually, yay!"?

sin_city wrote: »

Ok, so you're in favour of world government. Enough said. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's probably enough said.

amused,
Scofflaw