Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bit cynical

molloyjh wrote: »

You cannot possibly be that naive or one eyed, can you?

Well no. The EU itself and the direction it was going in also played a big part. The Remain campaign and its lack of convincing arguments or enthusiasm helped secure the result. Donald Tusk's "end of civilization if there's a brexit" would have had a large effect in favour of Brexit. Credit where credit is due.

But like I said, there is little to be gained from rerunning the campaign on message boards like this. It won't change the result.

BlitzKrieg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I heard a figure of 9% on RTE Radio 1's The Late Debate last week.

i.e. 9% of EU legislation is transposed into the EEA agreement.

A brief google suggests that the figure came from a Norwegian political group that opposes Norwegian integration with the EU, so there's some bias. However, I haven't seen any contradiction of the figures.

They say that 52,183 legal instruments were adopted by the EU since 2000, but that only 4,724 were incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

Now that 52,000 figure is probably misleading, since not all of those legal instruments affect all members of the EU. Some will be specific to particular countries, some will have opt-outs, and many will relate to the Eurozone.

The figure also says nothing of the distribution of interference, i.e. the 47-odd thousand regulations and directives might effect minimal impact on their subjects, whereas the 4-odd thousand that apply to Norway, might effect serious impacts on its sovereignty.

The bottom line, however, is that it's quite clear that the vast majority of the EU's legal instruments have no application in Norway.

Someone linked a fantastic comprehensive breakdown that Norway did much earlier in this thread. You got to use google translate to read it but it is genuinely a good source of information on Norway's relationship with the EU:

link: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?q&ch=1

The paper itself concluded that it was stupid to try and measure the Eu influence by number of laws as it stated (with google translate)

The overview also illustrates that there is no correlation between how important a site is in the EU (political, economic, judicial, administrative or otherwise) and how many acts are given. Energy is a very important area, but only account for 0.5 percent of the total net acts. The whole category "right of establishment and the free movement of services" stands only for 1.4 per cent and "Free movement of workers and social policy" only 1.8 percent. Compared with these key sectors, there is no proportionality in that 42 per cent of the acts on agriculture, or 9.4 percent connections to third countries.

I go to into more detail when I responded here: (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99968622&postcount=364)

The most important detail they point out is that when discussing Norway and the EEA they compare Norway to all the laws the EU passes

But if they were to compare Norway and the UK the figures would actually be much much closer because the UK is (was?) exempt from so many areas of EU law already (schengen, euro, common defence and security etc) some of which Norway is not even exempt from (Norway is in Schengen) so there are laws Norway takes on that the UK doesnt.

The majority would like to emphasize that the figure of 4.3 is a comparison with the EU states that are on the whole, as f. Ex. Finland or Germany. Comparing with the states with the least, such as the UK, the figure is different. It also applies compared with Sweden, which is not part of the euro, and with Denmark, nor are there and also have other exceptions, including in areas where Norway is associated. Compared with these countries, Norway adapted considerably more than 3/4 of what they are agreeing to.

But it is an interesting read in particular in areas that people think going to the EEA would free them from interference like the European courts or the primacy of EU law will be in for an incredibly rude awakening. As the paper goes into great detail the history of the legal back and forth between Norway and the EU and their relationship. Which is why it was called inside and outside

edit: I see Bit Cynical is quoting the chart out of context yet again

Suryavarman

It probably better to consider the financial cost of adhering to the applicable laws than just counting the number of laws applicable. If Norway only has to adhere to 10% of laws but those account for 50% of the cost of complying with regulations then that's important to consider.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The paper itself concluded that it was stupid to try and measure the Eu influence by number of laws as it stated (with google translate)

Well it's not stupid, but I did already make the point that using these figures takes no account of the qualitative impact of specific legislative acts on a Member State. No argument there.

This conversation began when Wes claimed that Norway has to abide by "most" EU laws, which appears to be untrue.

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you do have a point. I'm not a fan of Farage or Ukip, but from a purely disinterested perspective, I see that party having reached a turning point. They have achieved the aim of getting the UK out of the EU. The UK is not out yet but it will be. The next leader of the Tory's (most likely Theresa May) will invoke Article 50, triggering the exit process. There will not be another referendum or any of that nonesense. This is a major victory for Ukip.

However, as pointed out, Farage's whole being these last however many years has been aimed at a) securing a referendum (a huge achievement in itself) and b) winning that referendum.

I personally think that the Norway model would be a good compromise for Britain, many of whom did not vote Brexit. Certainly the best for Ireland, with 50% of our exports going to the UK. Least disruption all around generally.

However, Farage doesn't want that and he is entitled to fight for what he wants. But given that he wants the UK fully out, perhaps he sees the best way to achieve that is to hand over the party to someone else. Whether or not we agree with his goals, he's not like the sort of career politicians we have over here.

50% of our exports do not go to the UK, important to point out. It's 16%, the EU 60% and US 23, we are far removed from 20 years ago thank God. We do export a lot of food industry produce. The UK is still a big import market though, we're the UK's 4th largest export market.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/exports

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

50% of our exports do not go to the UK, important to point out. It's 16%, the EU 60% and US 23, we are far removed from 20 years ago thank God. We do export a lot of food industry produce. The UK is still a big import market though, we're the UK's 4th largest export market.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/exports

Another point worth making here is how the impact breaks-down geographically.

It is rural Ireland which has most to lose here. The urban centres could suffer some losses, but goods and services exported to the UK tend to be fairly robust. If the Brits aren't buying our widgets, we can sell them to the Yanks or the Aussies. New deals, new opportunities.

Farming is not as robust. A Monaghan chicken farmer cannot convert his facility and his skills to an alternative business. Dairy farmers won't become widget entrepreneurs overnight, and the cost & model of farming in Ireland makes us uncompetitive in global markets compared to, say, New Zealand.

If the export of agricultural produce goes tits-up, so will rural Ireland.

I wish I could be less pessimistic, but even if Britain joins the EEA, it will be free to conduct trade deals with the likes of New Zealand. And where will that leave Irish farming?

And then there's the exchange-rate volatility. My God I will have to go downstairs and pour myself a drink before I finish this post.

I suppose there is one cause of optimism for farming, and that is that we have lost the biggest opponent to the CAP, which will hopefully be strengthened into the future.

Rightwing

The big risk from Brexit is that the whole EU project will collapse. This increases uncertainty, so investment across the whole EU is going to suffer as a result.

BlitzKrieg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well it's not stupid, but I did already make the point that using these figures takes no account of the qualitative impact of specific legislative acts on a Member State. No argument there.

This conversation began when Wes claimed that Norway has to abide by "most" EU laws, which appears to be untrue.

as I said the paper itself stated Norway is on par with the UK in terms of laws it abides

Norway is both outside and within the EU - at the same time. On the one hand, Norway is not an EU member. Norway does not participate in decision-making in the EU and are outside the key areas of cooperation, including the euro and the common foreign policy. Norway is formally freer than EU states, and has to some extent been able to choose what they want to be part of and not a part of. On the other hand, Norway is closely linked to the EU. Norway has taken an estimated three quarters of EU law compared with those Member States that are involved in everything, and carried it more effectively than many. Seen from the EU, Norway is the third country that is most closely associated. As EU Foreign writes on its website: "Norway is as integrated in European policy and economy as any non-member State can ask."

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?ch=7#KAP27-1

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

as I said the paper itself stated Norway is on par with the UK in terms of laws it abides



https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?ch=7#KAP27-1

I'm not relying on google translate to decipher the meaning of that, which I suspect relates only to directives only. There are two other sources, in English, which provide numbers and state their methodology

Even using your common sense, you'd be skeptical of 75 per cent. there's no way that CAP, justice, security, environement, fiscal rules, monetary policy, social policy, customs and world trade (i.e. non EEA competencies) only account for 25% of EU law, and that 75% applies to the four freedoms and fish.

That is not credible, nevermind the English-language sources that confirm that.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not relying on google translate to decipher the meaning of that, which I suspect relates only to directives only. There are two other sources, in English, which provide numbers and state their methodology

You know the difference between a Directive and a Regulation?

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You know the difference between a Directive and a Regulation?

What is with you popping up, asking me these ridiculous questions? Of course I do. Now make your point?

Pro Hoc Vice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What is with you popping up, asking me these ridiculous questions? Of course I do. Now make your point?

Last time I asked what you call a ridiculous question you totall changed what you meant. As asking questions gives clarity to what a poster means as it stops them saying I never meant that as you already accepted that you claim about sham marriages and EU courts was all made up. If you don't want to answer the question posed that's cool I have no further interest in the topic as you so evidently have no idea what you saying.

BlitzKrieg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not relying on google translate to decipher the meaning of that, which I suspect relates only to directives only. There are two other sources, in English, which provide numbers and state their methodology

Even using your common sense, you'd be skeptical of 75 per cent. there's no way that CAP, justice, security, environement, fiscal rules, monetary policy, social policy, customs and world trade (i.e. non EEA competencies) only account for 25% of EU law, and that 75% applies to the four freedoms and fish.

That is not credible, nevermind the English-language sources that confirm that.

Norway actually does incoperate a number of laws in some of those areas

for example you mention environment:

There are extensive environmental cooperation between the EU and Norway. 364 Through the EEA Agreement, Norway has taken over most of the EU's environmental policies and regulations, and implemented this in Norwegian law and practice. Moreover, Norway participates in several EU environmental programs, and actively seeks to contribute to the formulation of EU environmental policy. Environment has through the period 1992-2011 gradually become an increasingly important part of the EEA Agreement, in line with developments in the EU. Beyond the EEA agreement, Norway also works closely with the EU in international environmental activities. For Norwegian environmental management, relations with the EU a significant part of the current workload.

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?q=&ch=6#KAP25-3

Again extensive document that touches on most of these areas


Security

EU cooperation in these areas are not covered by the EEA Agreement. Norway does not participate in the cooperation and nor is there any overriding legal or institutional framework for cooperation with the EU on foreign and security policy field. However, Norway has signed a number of agreements in various ways linking Norway to various aspects of cooperation.

and

To achieve participation and good cooperation with the EU, the Norwegian authorities emphasized to provide financial and personnel contributions to EU operations and activities, as well as participation in the European Defence Agency (EDA). Norway has joined the vast majority of EU foreign policy declarations and a number of EU sanctions. Norway has also gradually scale Norwegian military and civilian forces to EU disposal, and has participated in a number of the EU's international operations.

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?ch=6#KAP19


As I keep repeating its an interesting read

Polo_Mint

Rightwing wrote: »

The big risk from Brexit is that the whole EU project will collapse. This increases uncertainty, so investment across the whole EU is going to suffer as a result.

While the Brexiters are hoping that, I dont believe that would be the case.

I believe the EU will change their objectives with the Brexit.

The Brexit will have just given the EU a wake up call. And they wont stand still over it.

While the UK would be the catalyst of reform within the EU, They will be standing on the outside with zero benefit of structural change within the EU.

With Elections in France, Germany, Austria and Italy, The current governments with take some right wing policies to please the masses who would vote for far right politians.

smjm

'Juncker to give way on EU-Canada trade plan'

https://next.ft.com/content/80f0ee74-4224-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

Looks like Juncker is being brought to heel! About time too!

wes

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unfortunately, if they reapply, they will lose all derogations hard won over the last forty years - in particularly the one that allowed them to not join the Eurozone. That alone will make rejoining a bitter pill to swallow.

Well, its a pill they may be willing to take if Brexit doesn't work out for them. 20 years down the line, when the people who wanted to remain are running the show, attitudes may very well change.

Bit cynical

wes wrote: »

Well, its a pill they may be willing to take if Brexit doesn't work out for them. 20 years down the line, when the people who wanted to remain are running the show, attitudes may very well change.

The UK will have its ups and downs, and during difficult times there will always be some people who will say that Britain should have remained in the EU. And they may even be correct that a particular problem the UK faces would not occur if they were members of the EU.

There are, of course, other problems that Britain will avoid by not being a member. Other Euro-crises will occur and the former Brexiters will say "look at the bullet we dodged".

But what will happen over the course of time is that the country will stop seeing itself in terms of membership/non-membership of the EU. This will happen in a lot less than 20 years. Thus even if Britain hits a problem that would not have occurred if they were members of the EU, they will look to themselves to solve the problem. Likewise, advantages to being outside the EU will be taken for granted just like they are in countries that were never part of the EU in the first place.

Thomas_..

stefanovich wrote: »

Thomas_.. wrote: »

That s good news. After he s done his inciting "bit" that led to abuse on foreigners in the UK shortly after his side has won. I never liked that fella and it was much more disappointing to watch the EU leaders doing nothing to counter his critics which were right when he raised them.

The whole leading figures of the leave campaign are now taking their own "leave" and also "leave" the country in this position they have brought it to by their lies and half-truths.

Farage should also resign from his MEP seat after that. Nobody wants him there and he s already "finished his job". Good riddance to him and hopefully to his UKIP Party as well.

Farage never incited anything. He's a good man who stood up for what he believed. There was no way the Tories were going to let him be a part of the leave negotiations. He stood down because it was the right thing for UKIP and he reached his political goal.

I'm not sure what sort of calamity you people think it waiting for the UK post Brexit. The immediate damage was magnified by Osbourne and Cameron. The UK is now in a very strong position and I truly believe things will be better for them now.

Not surprised at some of the Remain voters reactions. Don't understand how the left are out in force protesting on behalf of big business and the bureaucratic behemoth which is the EU. A big cartel run by lobbyists and anti-democratic greedy fat cats.

Harika wrote: »

With a smart leader, labor should steamroll the next election. Recession means a lot of lost jobs, and the workers that will stay in their jobs will have to pay more taxes.
Also the slashing of corporate taxes shouldn't be seen as threat to Ireland, I think the UK government now knows they lost one of their competitive edges and needs to compensate existing companies, that were against the Brexit, to stay.

This smart leader is who exactly? Labour has been infiltrated by jew hating communists. I'm surprised they haven't blamed this on Israel yet.

You'll see when things are going more nasty for all the working people. Farage was always a big mouth and the thing that annoyes me most is the lack of counter reactions by the EU to grab off the water from his mills. The fact that he s clinging on his MEP seat says it all. He first wanted "his country back", now he wants his "life back" but also he wants to keep is MEP salary. But above all, he pulls out for his own selfish reasoning and not taking responsibility for what he was campaigning for more than 20 years. Without him, there haven t been a figure head for a Brexit. It was all his brain child and propaganda hobby horse.

That man is a coward of the highest order and a typical right-wing big mouth that achieved to split the whole of his nation.

The British will have pay dearly for this in the years to come and what we have seen in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit was just a beginning.

In all you praise for him, you don't seem surprised that he and his fellas as well as those Tories who supported him never had a single blue print plan for the time after the Brexit. All naive belief that they were able to put their demands on the EU and the EU will comply with it unquestioned. This was a folly from the very start and the proof came quickly in the past days that the EU will not comply to the demands of the UK, the UK is to either comply with the rules the EU will set up in the negotiations or the British can see where they are left.

Bit cynical

Thomas_.. wrote: »

You'll see when things are going more nasty for all the working people. Farage was always a big mouth and the thing that annoyes me most is the lack of counter reactions by the EU to grab off the water from his mills. The fact that he s clinging on his MEP seat says it all. He first wanted "his country back", now he wants his "life back" but also he wants to keep is MEP salary. But above all, he pulls out for his own selfish reasoning and not taking responsibility for what he was campaigning for more than 20 years. Without him, there haven t been a figure head for a Brexit. It was all his brain child and propaganda hobby horse.

That man is a coward of the highest order and a typical right-wing big mouth that achieved to split the whole of his nation.

The British will have pay dearly for this in the years to come and what we have seen in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit was just a beginning.

In all you praise for him, you don't seem surprised that he and his fellas as well as those Tories who supported him never had a single blue print plan for the time after the Brexit. All naive belief that they were able to put their demands on the EU and the EU will comply with it unquestioned. This was a folly from the very start and the proof came quickly in the past days that the EU will not comply to the demands of the UK, the UK is to either comply with the rules the EU will set up in the negotiations or the British can see where they are left.

I think one of the reasons the Remain side lost was that they were obsessed with Farage. Apoplectic with rage, they made him into a central figure and attacked him rather than deal with the underlying issues concerning membership of the EU.

Thomas_..

Bit cynical wrote: »

Thomas_.. wrote: »

You'll see when things are going more nasty for all the working people. Farage was always a big mouth and the thing that annoyes me most is the lack of counter reactions by the EU to grab off the water from his mills. The fact that he s clinging on his MEP seat says it all. He first wanted "his country back", now he wants his "life back" but also he wants to keep is MEP salary. But above all, he pulls out for his own selfish reasoning and not taking responsibility for what he was campaigning for more than 20 years. Without him, there haven t been a figure head for a Brexit. It was all his brain child and propaganda hobby horse.

That man is a coward of the highest order and a typical right-wing big mouth that achieved to split the whole of his nation.

The British will have pay dearly for this in the years to come and what we have seen in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit was just a beginning.

In all you praise for him, you don't seem surprised that he and his fellas as well as those Tories who supported him never had a single blue print plan for the time after the Brexit. All naive belief that they were able to put their demands on the EU and the EU will comply with it unquestioned. This was a folly from the very start and the proof came quickly in the past days that the EU will not comply to the demands of the UK, the UK is to either comply with the rules the EU will set up in the negotiations or the British can see where they are left.

I think one of the reasons the Remain side lost was that they were obsessed with Farage. Apoplectic with rage, they made him into a central figure and attacked him rather than deal with the underlying issues concerning membership of the EU.

Sure, that was one of the reasons but more than this, the turnout by the younger voters was low in some parts of the England and Wales.

I also think that Europe is becoming more and more fed up with the English, for there was always any thing they could find to complain about and nothing was ever right for them.

Now, that Scotlands govt has also had enough of it, the Scottish independence issue is back on the table and the mood likely to swing towards a bigger support for independence than it was that narrow in 2014. The SNP will not rest until they have achieved their aim and the chances that they will achieve that sooner or later within the period of the UK-EU Brexit negotiations.

I wouldn't be surprised when in the end of the day, Farage has done his beloved "UK" such a big service that it leads to the break up of the UK itself by another Scottish independence referendum on which the "Yes Independence" side will win the next time. Once that might happen, the Welsh might also break away from the "rest-UK" and that leaves NI with no other reasonable option than to re-united with the Republic of Ireland (more for practical and economical reasons than for Nationalist ones).

The Leave voters followed a man who was perceived as a polit-clown for decades and the former Mayor of London is a likewise character, even if not that "equal" to Farage. Johnson seem to already have regretted it, but now it's too late for turning back the clock or having a second referendum on the UK's EU Membership.

Let's just hope that other countries will learn their lessons from all this Brexit-sh1te and avoid following people of the likes of Farage who first lead their country into a mess and then quickly "jumping the ship" after the damage is done.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Norway actually does incoperate a number of laws in some of those areas

for example you mention environment:

Yes, and that was probably the only post in a series of post in which I didn't insert the proviso "with some exceptions", because the EEA agreement does not directly incorporate environmental legislative acts, with some exceptions.

However, the other areas you mention, security and foreign policy, are not relevant to this discussion. Norway voluntarily signs up to these legal instruments, which go above and beyond Norway's obligations to the EEA agreement. Therefore, these cannot be counted in the 'basket' of EU legislation which has application to Norway on foot of its membership of the EEA.

In any event, our Cambodian friend Suryavarman made a good point a few posts ago, in that it is probably more accurate (and better for your argument) to count the financial cost of adherence to EU legislation than crudely counting the legislative instruments that compulsorily apply to Norway. Because the English-language sources (and our common sense) seem to suggest that the majority do not apply, crude measure as that is.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Last time I asked what you call a ridiculous question you totall changed what you meant. As asking questions gives clarity to what a poster means as it stops them saying I never meant that

Then make your point?

I don't know what's going on here. We're having a conversation about the legislation that apply to Norway, and I suggest that a particular figure might apply to directives only, and not regulations & other instruments.

Now imagine having that conversation in real life, and someone walks up to you and says, "yeah, but do you know the difference between a regulation and a directive?". Like, what? Of course I bloody do, what on earth indicated that I don't? Now what do you want?

Bob24

Looks like the pound is dropping again. It had been unusually stable between 1.20/1.21 euros for over a week, and it is now 1.18.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, and that was probably the only post in a series of post in which I didn't insert the proviso "with some exceptions", because the EEA agreement does not directly incorporate environmental legislative acts, with some exceptions.

However, the other areas you mention, security and foreign policy, are not relevant to this discussion. Norway voluntarily signs up to these legal instruments, which go above and beyond Norway's obligations to the EEA agreement. Therefore, these cannot be counted in the 'basket' of EU legislation which has application to Norway on foot of its membership of the EEA.

In any event, our Cambodian friend Suryavarman made a good point a few posts ago, in that it is probably more accurate (and better for your argument) to count the financial cost of adherence to EU legislation than crudely counting the legislative instruments that compulsorily apply to Norway. Because the English-language sources (and our common sense) seem to suggest that the majority do not apply, crude measure as that is.

Then make your point?

I don't know what's going on here. We're having a conversation about the legislation that apply to Norway, and I suggest that a particular figure might apply to directives only, and not regulations & other instruments.

Now imagine having that conversation in real life, and someone walks up to you and says, "yeah, but do you know the difference between a regulation and a directive?". Like, what? Of course I bloody do, what on earth indicated that I don't? Now what do you want?

I want world peace. But as directives must be incorporated into each states law if required, on the other hand Regulations apply to each state from the time they become operative, and require no local action. By definition in dealing with Norway it would be mostly Directives that would be used as Regulations would in most cases only apply to EU state wide law, so it would follow that Norway would have far fewer Regulations effecting it than Directives. Hence the difference in figures.

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm

For example Switzerland does not as Directives come in to existence adopt them, but every now and again agrees with a new agreement what it will incorporate, so again different to the Norway model.

By the way you seem very angry, a good cup of tea would be a nice idea, it might help you relax, and engage with other people in a nice way. Its funny how asking questions helps me learn new things every day.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Looks like the pound is dropping again. It had been unusually stable between 1.20/1.21 euros for over a week, and it is now 1.18.

The real storm is just on its way and hasn´t unfolded yet.

Unfortunately, I can´t post links yet in my posts. But have a look at the BBC News site (Business) and go to the article "Bank of England warns Brexit risks beginning to crystallise". There´s lot to come and there´s less to predict how it will affect the ordinary people.

Brexit was a folly and that becomes more and more clear.

1.17

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

By definition in dealing with Norway it would be mostly Directives that would be used as Regulations would in most cases only apply to EU state wide law, so it would follow that Norway would have far fewer Regulations effecting it than Directives. Hence the difference in figures.

I said almost the exact same thing on the AH thread. I don't disagree with it. I just don't see what your point is here, or how you think it contradicts anything I've said. More pertinently, what the point of your question was.

My point is that I suspect 75% relates to directives, and not regulations and other instruments, (even though regulations can have application in Norway).

In assessing the stock of EU legislation that applies to Norway, we should count all binding European legislation as the denominator figure. We should probably exclude eurozone legislation and opt-outs, but that would be cumbersome, and nobody has attempted it.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I said almost the exact same thing on the AH thread. I don't disagree with it. I just don't see what your point is here, or how you think it contradicts anything I've said. More pertinently, what the point of your question was.

My point is that I suspect 75% relates to directives, and not regulations and other instruments, (even though regulations can have application in Norway).

In assessing the stock of EU legislation that applies to Norway, we should count all binding European legislation as the denominator figure. We should probably exclude eurozone legislation and opt-outs, but that would be cumbersome, and nobody has attempted it.

Did I say I disagreed with you I simply asked a question in fact I'm not following either thread as I sadly do not have the time to read hundreds of posts and as I said I simply asked a question.

CMOTDibbler

Sky News caught Ken Clarke talking candidly on an open mic. Absolutely fascinating and some of his comments on the candidates for the Tory leadership are hilarious. Cracked up at the thought of Johnson being PM and said Gove would declare war on three countries at once.

http://news.sky.com/

djpbarry

stefanovich wrote: »

I can't see any mess from where I'm sitting.

Not been looking at the currency markets then?

M&G suspended....