What impact will a British vote to leave the EU have on partition?

Charles Babbage

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The DUP are in the Out camp as well, bit surprising seeing as the North did benefit from EU funding.

It already costs Britain a lot of money to prop up NI, if they leave and the EU money isn't coming in anymore it will cost a lot more.

The DUP are speaking with a forked tongue and many of their voters will see this. They talk about the savings the UK will have from not sending money to the EU, but there is little chance of the Chancellor sending that money to the money pit that is the 6 counties, and little money will be sent to replace moeny lost to farmers etc.

In my opinion this reflects poorly on the leadership of Foster, who represents an agricultural constituency on the border. Neither the withdrawal of agri subsides nor any bureaucratic bollix on cross border trade would not be good for Fermanagh. Nor would any renewed Scottish drive for independence be good for the union between NI and Britain, so other there is no reasonable basis for this DUP policy other than that the Teagues will be voting to stay in.

Mr.Micro

I suspect Cameron may have bitten off more than he can chew. He probably thought it was a good idea at the time to propose getting out of the EU, an election ploy and keep UKIP at bay.Win or lose the referendum, there will be a split or division at the very least. I am not sure that an isolationist policy is good for the UK. Interesting times ahead.

A Dub in Glasgo

Remain / In for me but watching the Tories tear themselves apart will be fun

purplepanda

Still waiting for a prominent left of centre politician / trades union leader to declare for leaving, I'm not sure if one will step forward, Corbyn & McDonnell have voted against every EU legislation over the last 30 odd years & now are sitting on the fence.

Another pair of hypocritical politicians exposed! 30% of Labour voters according to polls want to exit yet the leadership cartel refuses to take account of their views! :mad:

It's as if the Blairite clique are still in control!:pac:

KingBrian2

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The DUP are in the Out camp as well, bit surprising seeing as the North did benefit from EU funding.

It already costs Britain a lot of money to prop up NI, if they leave and the EU money isn't coming in anymore it will cost a lot more.

The DUP are no friends of Cameron. They even still oppose dozens of social legislation like same sex marriage and abortion. Any chance to pull out of Europe they will be in on it.

purplepanda

Finally Owen Jones calls on the left to campaign for EU withdrawal.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic?CMP=share_btn_fb

Lt Dan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Europe definitely needs to change to reflect the wishes of the member states but political parties from across the continent has been resisting that drive for European integration We need a centralised European gvt that allows each of the parliaments to decide what's best. The European Parliament is only useful for blocking pan European projects the parliaments should take back that control. I agree on that.

People, not just the politicians fear the idea of a Federal Europe. They do not want it, bar nothing countries like Belgium. The French and Dutch went bat poo crazy over references to a flag and anthem in the draft Constitution (obviously it was more than that). If the EU gives the Institutions more of a Inter government feel then little will be done, how could they with 27 different nations with different needs. They tried that in the 1970-1980s all they got was stalemate and economic boycotts between eg France and Germany.

The perception of the EU has always been one that is not democratic. Few around the EU really actually realise how central their laws are to domestic legislation. Our Politicians use the EU as a scapegoat when they explain why they can not do something. Look at the turnouts for MEP elections, poor.

Lt Dan

micosoft wrote: »

I'm really not sure if there is a single statement in there that is true. But lets start with the first & last statements.

Are you seriously arguing that Ireland, a country of 4 Million people on the periphery of Europe does not have serious influence far outside what our economy, population and military strength might suggest?

As for the last one. The Treaty of Rome in 1957 explicitly stated that the EEC as it was called then would be "a ever union". The British People were informed of this by a flyer that went to every home in the UK when the referendum to join the EC which stated this.

You can start by specifying why not "a single statement in there is true". That is what one normally does.

Influence: While no doubt proportional, it is getting harder to have Irish views heard and more importantly considered as more areas of EU law is now voted by QMV. With bigger countries in the EU Ireland better shared common ideas with them . Britain was often an "friend" on many issues,..... bar say C.A.P. and grants for same. We also nearly lost the right to a permanent Commissioner (feck all they can do for their Country as their main job is to work for the Union and not an individual country) and simply have a Commissioner every few years (while the big countries, naturally, would not loose theirs) The fact that it was considered by the EU showed that they weren’t too pushed about smaller countries not having a Permanent presence at the Commission . It was only when Ireland first rejected Lisbon that EU came back and reversing some of the proposals.

I discussed the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 as an example , as a starting point if you will (I can’t genuinely recall what was said in 1992 )of increasing non Economic powers that the EU sought to obtain under it’s wing. There were fears regarding our criminal laws (extradition for example), military and certain aspects of immigration/borders (this was more expanded by further Treaties) People were seen as nutters when they cried about our apparent neutrality etc. We got clauses to alleviate such fears. However, many of them are worthless now as the EU, through subsequent Treaties (which we begrudgingly accepted, voting more than once) Now a lot of areas in Crime and Immigration are moved into the main pillars of the EU (ie QMV as oppose to veto) EU has more say in areas such as Immigration ie Main legislation on asylum /subsidiary protection (we already had that in place of course) and now we have European Extradition Warrants – a big step up from the humble European Economic Area or European Community (That is not actually a bad thing, but what has it to do with the Economy?)

We are now also, voluntarily it should be noted, part of a European Reactionary Forces where we do not know what relation it has with NATO (where many countries have two hats on) . Of course, it still is consistent with our obligations with the UN. The point here was, some of the fears raised by people back in the day have not really gone away as the subsequent Treaties are chipping away and bringing areas, many of which can be core social issues for a country into the QMV arena as oppose to the veto arena. We can of course say No, but then pressure (internal and external) is imposed to reconsider.

You can not deny that IBEC and Political Parties have talked people down about opposing the EU. EU for jobs etc, You hardly deny that? – Lisbon had little or nothing to do with creating jobs. It was intended to reform the Institutions (badly needed) and make room for the other dozen countries) We were told that our Corporation Tax was safe. It was written into a protocol which the EU did not need to do. Now we have MEP’s while speaking in the European Parliament complaining and making threats (individual of course). What if they are clever enough to get a substantial proportion of like minded MEP’s to write up a proposal for legislation or Treaty change (which we would have to agree with of course) to the Commission . Since when was taxation part of the EU remit?
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/government-warned-over-changes-to-corporate-tax-1.2443736

Of course , EU still promises to respect our right to deal with our own taxation , but who is to say that the next few Treaties will change that? How many times will the Irish people have to say No?
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irelands-low-125pc-corporation-tax-rate-safe-under-new-eu-antitax-avoidance-rules-moscovici-34404374.html

Back to an auld pet project. In or around early to mid 1990’s EU sought and did effectively put an end to our right to cut turf in a certain manner. They gave Ireland over 10 years to get out act together and even granted an extension of time (how nice they are) They were of course compensated for it. Parts of Galway haven’t been able to cut turf with machines as far back as 2000. A bit odd that the likes of Ming (who knows Galway very very well as Castlerea is very close to some of the effected towns/villages in Galway) only came out in the last few years (as the ban began to take effect in other areas. No regard was taken to needs of a country lacking in other alternative resources. I know the Dutch were effected (how so I do not know) . Yet if a bigger country like Britain or Germany was affected would they have succeeded? No. Since when is worrying about wildlife (on private land by the way) an issue for the economic wellbeing of the EU ? (of course there is environmental issues, but hey we still burn oil) What if the ban was on oil? I’d say Britain would be very happy about that.

People were considered loonies who shouted about abortion being brought in the back door. They would be right as none of the Treaties specifically dealt with abortion. However, the famous ABC case (which did not support or allow abortion on demand, and only ruled on Ireland implementing the law that it ALREADY was in Irish law) showed the absolute arrogance and disregard for even EU law by the dissenting judges by creating ways to suggest that the EU could and should accept abortion on demand , if they got their way. Of course, the majority judges did have to put them in their place and remind them of the right to respect other countries etc. While the European Court on Human Rights is separate from the EU and the CJEU, the ECHR has now a stronger position within EU Treaties that it previously did under Lisbon. That will eventually change and become more central in time. CJEU courts are already referring to ECHR cases (they did previously but it is now playing a bigger role)

Returning to Judicial Activism (which happens in every young country starting out, if it didn't happen in Ireland in the 1960's Our Constitution would have been out of date pretty quickly, but there is always a cut off point) , during the period of 2000- 2008, there was plenty of it in the area of Free movement of People/Immigration, primarily in cases involving Non EU people. Even the Commission sided with the offending country at times. Chen v UK, Metock v Ireland, Zambrano v Ireland is a pretty good example, as is Zambrano . The interpretation in those cases had little or no precedent or regard for the actual intentions of the Member States or the Council (of course, EU law does not have to stick with precedence like our system) There is an interesting notion that Articles 20-21 TFEU are interpreted that it is ultimately the aim that Europe would be one (despite the fact that they say that they are complementary as oppose to supersede one’s status) It has disregard to the fact that Free Movement has it’s own restrictions ie be a worker,self employed , established. The new concept of EU Citizens (created by the courts and not Member States – well, it is not new, just, it was never what the Members States intended in 1992 or beyond) has been used to override any problems caused by the other Treaty Provisions. All done with as much vagueness as possible. The point is to ensure EU law is imposed at all costs. It has effectively protected the Non EU person whose connection to Europe via family members is questionable or weak. It has been a vehicle of abuse in immigration systems but that has been ignored by the Courts. I have no issue with protection Non EU Family Members, but I expect the Courts to stay within the remit of the Treaties and offer better and more credible explanations to their decisions.

Thankfully, it should be added, that there has been a bit of a retreat from those lofty notions of the likes of Metock & Zambrano etc in subsequent cases like McCarthy v Uk and Drecei (sp) and others v Austria .However, the Courts still insist that the criteria and standards from cases from the 1980’s is still good when defining a “worker” or a “job seeker”.

There are still problems with the democratic side of the EU Institutions, despite the new procedures for National Parliaments. To enforce further would be a recognition of a Federal Union hence the opposition and fear of further loss of sovereignty as in order to be all singing from the same hymn sheet Europe must be given the powers to sort that out.
The perception has been clear for a long time, Germany (and previously France under Sarzo) acted how they saw fit. German politicians and the public have no qualms reminding people that they are the pay master . It is only now of course that ze German’s ego has taking a bruising after their SOLO run last summer. No pre consultations with fellow EU States or actually glance on what is actually happening in Europe were taken. If they had, they would not have made the proposals without having a plan of action (might not have taken any action if they listened to countries that know what they are talking about) Maybe if they looked up the term “Refugee” they would have cottoned on that it does not include economic migrants or justification to ensure that their population does not get older (actual explanation give)

So you believe that the Union has not drastically changed from one of Economic co-operation of the EEC to the ever growing Institute that is the EU with its role in non -economic matters? What part of that statement is incorrect?

To answer your question, Ireland’s influence in Europe, at Brussels is and will wane. Areas that are vital to Ireland shall be transferred to QMV as oppose to the veto power (inevitable in order to keep order of a large Union). Britain is an “friend” on many issues close to Irish interest. We need all the friends we can get. It was easier to get a word in when we were a nation of 15 , but now with 27 and more to come, smaller nations will and have been squeezed out, contrary to what even the EU has / is trying to avoid.

As for your reference to the Treaty of Rome…. A LOT has happened since 1973. Stalemate in the 1970-1980’s when the EEC was of an Inter governmental nature (lots of vetos) brought way for the European Union . Do you really need an explanation on the differences between the EEC and the EU or EU of 1992-2000 and the present EU? Surely not… Big difference between economic unity (with a drop of social issues, that are related to the economy) and one like the EU that encapsulates other non – economic issues

I do not oppose a European Economic Community nor do I necessarily oppose uniformed set of rules in other non economic areas, and I recongise that it has been good for Ireland, but the current system is buckling.

Lt Dan

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is one of the constant confusions in EU debates - between "the EU" as an institution, and "the EU" as one or more Member States.

In this case, "the EU" as an institution does indeed have no powers over our corporation tax. Comments by individual Member States are not comment by "the EU", they are comments by the current governments of those countries, and have nothing to do with the institutional EU or its powers. They are comments that would happen in any version of Europe at peace.

cordially,
Scofflaw

When members of the Institution, ie MEP's actually use the platform of the European Parliament and makes speeches about another country and propose change , then, it is only a matter of time that the laws (The Treaties in this case) remove all those protections Ireland enjoy. You think these lads are not campaigning in the corridors of Luxembourg & Brussels ? (of course Ireland are too) We are "safe" but for how long?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/government-warned-over-changes-to-corporate-tax-1.2443736

http://www.europarl.ie/en/news_events/news/press_releases_2015/fghxhfx/taxxx.html

http://www.europarl.ie/en/news_events/news/press_releases_2016/january_2016/corporatetax.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/noonan-expects-apple-tax-inquiry-to-be-dropped-1.1992895

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/european-chief-takes-aim-at-irish-tax-regime-as-not-transparent-31262017.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irelands-low-125pc-corporation-tax-rate-safe-under-new-eu-antitax-avoidance-rules-moscovici-34404374.html

Of course, it is fair from Europe's Point of View that Ireland has to give as much as it takes

KingBrian2

Britain would be throwing a lot more away by leaving the EU than just free trade. The Charter on workers rights and ECJ are part of the EU treaties. Britain would in effect be going back to pre war Britain. Cameron will have to start convening a parliament and writing a new constitution for a new UK.

Lt Dan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain would be throwing a lot more away by leaving the EU than just free trade. The Charter on workers rights and ECJ are part of the EU treaties. Britain would in effect be going back to pre war Britain. Cameron will have to start convening a parliament and writing a new constitution for a new UK.

That might make Labour relevant again . No way would the public let go of workers rights. It is not like women's rights will somehow go back to what they were before they entered the EEC. New Constitution? They never had one, well, written Constitution

I highly doubt even the Conservatives would dare to abolish existing legislation

KingBrian2

Lt Dan wrote: »

That might make Labour relevant again . No way would the public let go of workers rights. It is not like women's rights will somehow go back to what they were before they entered the EEC. New Constitution? They never had one, well, written Constitution

I highly doubt even the Conservatives would dare to abolish existing legislation

Well Britain is in a bind. The house of Lords removes the commons as the supreme law of the land while the EU offers the workers charter which annoys the hell out of conservatives. Pulling out of Europe means those zero hour contracts being normalcy in the UK. Really bad for the average Briton and really bad for the trade unions. Watch this space.