Brexit Referendum Superthread

Scofflaw

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is easy enough to say that if you limit what you mean by legislation to one type of legal instrument (and I've seen this done a number of times). But note that this is not the EU's definition of legislation.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

Note that this omits "Decisions" many of which may not apply to Norway but are still officially classed as legislation.

I admit I would have thought Norway would miss out on quite a lot of EU legislation by virtue of not being in the CAP.

But while CAP is a major legislative area, I'm not sure it's an area the UK really cares about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Because you were outraged at the suggestion that the CTA may not exist post-Brexit?
I just did - you obviously missed it.

If we compare the UK's socio-economic status now to what it was in the early 70s when it joined the EU (or the EC, as it was then), it is clear that the relationship has been beneficial.

Now, you could argue that the UK would be just as well off had it not joined the EU or that it will be just as well off if it now leaves, but, based on any form of rational analysis, that is an incredibly difficult argument to make.

Now, how about you tell us why the UK should leave?

The CTA will continue to exist if Brexit happens. There is no legal reason why it would not. I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area. If Britain and Ireland agree this, there is little the EU would do to prevent it. In the event of Brexit, the EU will have far bigger issues to deal with than trying to prevent British and Irish people trading, working and living together.

I don't understand your argument about socio-economic status. However, I don't have to argue that Britain has not benefitted from EU membership. We are where we are. The point is, do we want to continue to be members, with all the associated risks ?

I think the "Remain" side would do well to reconsider its strategy. The queue of "prefects" and "head boys" (on both sides of the Irish Sea) who trot out the same relentless propaganda about what might happen to the British economy are missing the point. People will vote based on their own experiences, not on half-baked economic pie-in-the-sky. I've been looking at the last few pages of this forum, and I see more of the same - even when rigorously applied, economics is not a science !

I've advanced some of my reasoning before, and I don't see any point in doing so again. However, doing so has been beneficial for me, so thanks for helping me clarify my views.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

The CTA will continue to exist if Brexit happens. There is no legal reason why it would not. I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area. If Britain and Ireland agree this, there is little the EU would do to prevent it. In the event of Brexit, the EU will have far bigger issues to deal with than trying to prevent British and Irish people trading, working and living together.

This is typical of the Leave campaign – everything will be fine, nothing to see here.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the CTA would exist post-Brexit. None. It’s possible that some sort of exception would be made, but it’s far from certain.

whatever_ wrote: »

I don't understand your argument about socio-economic status. However, I don't have to argue that Britain has not benefitted from EU membership. We are where we are. The point is, do we want to continue to be members, with all the associated risks ?

So you want to ignore any benefits the UK has enjoyed from being part of the EU, ignore the risks associated with leaving the EU and base your decision entirely on the risks associated with remaining in the EU?

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

This is typical of the Leave campaign – everything will be fine, nothing to see here.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the CTA would exist post-Brexit. None. It’s possible that some sort of exception would be made, but it’s far from certain.
So you want to ignore any benefits the UK has enjoyed from being part of the EU, ignore the risks associated with leaving the EU and base your decision entirely on the risks associated with remaining in the EU?

Finally - a worthwhile discussion ? Would you outline to me why you think the CTA might cease to exist, in the event of Brexit ?

whatstherush

whatever_ wrote: »

I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area.

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

Finally - a worthwhile discussion ? Would you outline to me why you think the CTA might cease to exist, in the event of Brexit ?

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

ancapailldorcha

whatstherush wrote: »

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

The "take back our borders" narrative seems a bit pointless if there is going to be a huge back door remaining wide open.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

Exactly ... no idea ! People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles). When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis that they are unable to manage not to mention the Dutch wanting a Referendum as well ... Britain and Ireland will sew up a CTTA (common travel and trade agreement) in days if not hours and the EU will quietly acquiesce ...

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is easy enough to say that if you limit what you mean by legislation to one type of legal instrument (and I've seen this done a number of times). But note that this is not the EU's definition of legislation.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

Note that this omits "Decisions" many of which may not apply to Norway but are still officially classed as legislation.

Do you know where in Outside and Inside that graph is? I'm looking through the 900 page report and I havnt found it yet.

Though I found some other juicy bits I'd like to come back around to later if possible


I've been using the official source (i think) of the document here: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?q=&ch=5

and chrome auto translate.

Its got some interesting things so far. But I've yet to find that chart.


for example when people get into talk about how much of a % of laws are EU in origin and debate on the figure I like this part of the report:

An estimate for Norway at approximately 30 percent of the laws that are affected by the EU / EEA seems to be fairly consistent with similar studies in some other countries. In the report which the Committee has obtained about the meaning of the EEA Agreement for Liechtenstein, it is estimated that approximately 27 percent of all laws and about 28 percent of all regulations serve to implement the EU / EEA law. 49 In a Danish study from 2010 it is stated that EU law affects approximately 20 percent of Danish laws and about 13 percent of regulations. 50 Since Denmark is a part of something more than Norway's, due to the difference probably most methodical inequality and differences between national legal systems. It may also indicate that the difference between Denmark as EU member and Norway under the EEA mm in the legal field are not so great. It is in line with the experiences many Norwegian EU / EEA lawyers for almost twenty years has made ​​in meeting with Danish colleagues.

Also this is one prospect that may be cold water for some

However, the practical significance is that any implemented EU / EEA rule by contending supersedes any Norwegian rule on legal or regulatory level. In § 2, even an EU / EEA rule implemented by regulations at conflict take precedence over an ordinary Norwegian statute

So EEA law will still supersede national law.

Both of these are from section 7.4

there's more but I'd need to quote huge paragraphs to get the context across correctly.


Section 6 and 7 is an interesting read about the actual processing of EU law to the EEA and norway's national laws



EDIT: found the graph. Its right at the very end.

ancapailldorcha

whatever_ wrote: »

Exactly ... no idea ! People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles). When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

I find the opposite is true. The Leave narrative tends to peak at "Take back our borders/country/passports" and "Sovereignty".

whatever_ wrote: »

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

The EU might. The point is that EU industries have a strong incentive to lobby for tariffs on UK exports. Lol quips don't really answer this question. Any EU trade deal will need ratification from most EU parliaments most of whom won't care one whit about German cars or French wine.

whatever_ wrote: »

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis that they are unable to manage not to mention the Dutch wanting a Referendum as well ... Britain and Ireland will sew up a CTTA (common travel and trade agreement) in days if not hours and the EU will quietly acquiesce ...

The CTA predates the EU. In any case, all any EU migrant will need to do is get a cheap flight to Dublin or Belfast and head to mainland Britain from there. Do you seriously think the CTA status quo will remain in place in the event of the UK leaving the EU?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

As long as Ireland is not forced to join the Schenghen Area, how would the CTA interfere with our obligations to the EU?

Forcing Ireland to join Schenghen would on the other end definitely compromise the CTA as we can obviously not be part of two distinct border control free areas ... but it would be a politically difficult move I think.

Would any EU politician really force a decision which would in practice reinstate a border between the ROI and Northern Ireland? (basically a symbolic reversal of the peace process which could have serious consequences)

BlitzKrieg

Ok I found the graph.

So yes you are correct that the CAP takes up a large % of regulations but not directives. But the paper itself emphasises that we shouldnt be giving more weight to those regulations, it highlights that there are more regulations in the CAP area not because there is more control exerting there or more importance given to that area but because regulations in the CAP are time sensitive and limited in effect. Its actually impossible for them to be incorporated into EEA law due to the length of delay it takes to process EU law to EEA law. By the time such regulations are processed into EEA law they will have expired and no longer in effect in the EU.


The paper makes a good point here:

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.

Again

thank you for pointing me to this. Its been a rather good read.

I'm now particularly interested in the effect EEA membership will have on the UK in terms of red tape as from reading sections of this, one of the biggest issues the report had with the EEA is how slow it is to respond to changes, it seems to be quite critical of how updates to the EEA can be delayed and there seems to be a lot more red tape involved then there already is with the EU.

Also since EEA agreements have to be unanimous will the current members want the UK joining if its going to risk more delay in the process?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Is “feeling strongly” a valid substitute for “thinking rationally”?

I disagree with the concept of preserving British values, but I certainly believe that a rational argument can be made, to the effect that Britain has a value system which is sometimes incompatible with that of the EU in general.

I am not suggesting that these 'British' values are unique to the United Kingdom. They often overlap with ally economies with a broadly Anglo-Saxon-type, classical outlook, such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and even Germany and the Netherlands (probably in that order).

However, for many (perfectly sensible) British voters, it is preferable to rely on their own democratic system to order society in accordance with their values, rather than hoping that other large member states like France, Italy and Spain don't erode the power of the UK's domestic institutions.

This is a debatable point, it is not an irrational one.

Sam Russell

whatstherush wrote: »

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

The CTA was hit pretty hard by Ryanair insisting on passports for travel within the CTA.

I think what is likely is that the EU border for people will be the Irish Sea, with NI and Irish people entering GB through the British Border Control.

Trade will probably do the same thing for most things - agriculture might be an exception.

whatstherush

Sam Russell wrote: »

The CTA was hit pretty hard by Ryanair insisting on passports for travel within the CTA.

I think what is likely is that the EU border for people will be the Irish Sea, with NI and Irish people entering GB through the British Border Control.

Trade will probably do the same thing for most things - agriculture might be an exception.

This may be the case, but the notion put forward by whatever that a formal bi lateral agreement will exist between Ireland and the UK dealing with trade ala the CTA is an non starter.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles).

The Remain arguments have been based on sound models (nobody is saying they are perfect) from pretty much every economic organisation there is.

What have the Leave campaign produced in response? “Ah sure, it’ll be grand”.

whatever_ wrote: »

When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

The border between the UK and Ireland is open right now, is it not? That is an indisputable fact.

That the border will remain open post-Brexit is not an indisputable fact – neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows exactly what will happen. What we can say is that the border cannot get any more open than it currently is, so the scenario post-Brexit can only be, at best, as good as it is now. But, given that one of the stated aims of the Leave campaign is reduce immigration and that, post-Brexit, the UK-Ireland border will represent one of the EU’s external frontiers, the probability that it will remain as open as it is now is virtually zero.

So, what is indisputable is that any special arrangement between the UK and Ireland post-Brexit cannot possibly be better than the arrangement that currently exists.

whatever_ wrote: »

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

You see, what you’re failing to grasp here is that, post-Brexit, from a British perspective, Ireland is no longer Ireland. Post-Brexit, as far as Britain is concerned, Ireland is the EU and Britain can no more selectively maintain an open border with Ireland than it can with Bulgaria, Greece or Portugal. That said, I’ve no doubt that political sensitivities will be taken into consideration with regard to the border between the North and the Republic.

whatever_ wrote: »

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis...

The UK has a £20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no economic growth, a currency declining in value and (apparently) a migration crisis.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

As long as Ireland is not forced to join the Schenghen Area, how would the CTA interfere with our obligations to the EU?

Well, the UK will be outside the EU and will apparently not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory – that would necessitate border controls between Ireland and the UK.

Bob24 wrote: »

Would any EU politician really force a decision which would in practice reinstate a border between the ROI and Northern Ireland?

Surely it’s the other way around? The EU will insist that the UK allows free movement of EU citizens to/from its territory if the UK wants access to the common market. So, in effect, it would be the decision of British politicians to reinstate a border (should it come to pass).

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I disagree with the concept of preserving British values, but I certainly believe that a rational argument can be made, to the effect that Britain has a value system which is sometimes incompatible with that of the EU in general.

I am not suggesting that these 'British' values are unique to the United Kingdom. They often overlap with ally economies with a broadly Anglo-Saxon-type, classical outlook, such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and even Germany and the Netherlands (probably in that order).

However, for many (perfectly sensible) British voters, it is preferable to rely on their own democratic system to order society in accordance with their values, rather than hoping that other large member states like France, Italy and Spain don't erode the power of the UK's domestic institutions.

This is a debatable point, it is not an irrational one.

Ok, but the obvious question to ask in response is to what extent have British values been “eroded” by their membership of the EU to date? To what extent would that erosion have taken place had the UK remained outside the EU? How do we even go about quantifying such a thing?

Personally, I’m not at all convinced that British “values” are all that different from French or German values, for example, and I’m really not at all convinced that Britain is becoming “less British” as a result of EU membership.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, the UK will be outside the EU and will apparently not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory – that would necessitate border controls between Ireland and the UK.

"not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory" is too vague and makes things sound more dramatic than they would really be. What they might do is to restrict the right for EU citizens to work in the UK. But there is no way they would require visas to visit the country and they would most likely not required passports to be stamped, so in all likelyhood EU citiznes would still be free to travel to the UK for leisure or business.

From that perspective there would be no big change in terms of border control and the CTA.

Also, note that the CTA as it is (with the UK in the EU) is already broken in the way you describe: a non-EU citizen can enter the ROI with a visa valid here but not in the UK. And they can then drive/sail/fly to the UK with no border control even though in theory they are not supposed to go there. The UK and Ireland seem to be OK with it and with the fact that spot checks within each state's territory are sufficient.

djpbarry wrote: »

Surely it’s the other way around? The EU will insist that the UK allows free movement of EU citizens to/from its territory if the UK wants access to the common market. So, in effect, it would be the decision of British politicians to reinstate a border (should it come to pass).

Don't agree there. The status quo is that the island of Ireland is border free and a Brexit woudn't change that unless the EU insists on forcing the ROI to join Schenghen. Of course the whole thing would be a shared responsibility but the actual decision triggering the reinstatement of a border would be an EU one.



As with most of the Brexit related predictions though, the only honest answer on the impact on the CTA is "we don't know for sure". Things will depend on the political mood and on what each country really sees as its national interest when facing the actual situation. If there is a strong will in the UK and Ireland to keep the CTA and no one is going against it, it will stay. If for some reason third party countries decide it is their interest to torpedo it, they will certainly have bullets to do so.

K-9

whatstherush wrote: »

This may be the case, but the notion put forward by whatever that a formal bi lateral agreement will exist between Ireland and the UK dealing with trade ala the CTA is an non starter.

I suppose it depends on if EU law would supercede the CTA which is older legislation, and if as a land border country there are any expectations and extra requirements. Leave side say there'll be little to no affect, Remain there'll probably be some.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/revenue-plans-for-renewed-border-control-in-event-of-brexit-1.2672152

From that there doesn't appear to be any major change, maybe an automated check point which wouldn't be a major inconvenience, nothing like the foot and mouth crisis as an example.

The Norway/Sweden example is being looked at but again Norway is in the EEA.

Even if UK goes it alone, any deal with the EU like Switzerland or the EEA involves free movement, and as mentioned that is also in the UK's interest for expats, business etc.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

"not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory" is too vague and makes things sound more dramatic than they would really be.

Ok, perhaps I should have said “complete free movement”.

Bob24 wrote: »

What they might do is to restrict the right for EU citizens to work in the UK. From that perspective there would be no big change in terms of border control and the CTA.

But Irish citizens are EU citizens?

Bob24 wrote: »

Don't agree there. The status quo is that the island of Ireland is border free and a Brexit woudn't change that unless the EU insists on forcing the ROI to join Schenghen. Of course the whole thing would be a shared responsibility but the actual decision triggering the reinstatement of a border would be an EU one.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this because as far as I’m concerned, the only people talking about closing borders are those in the Leave campaign.

Bob24 wrote: »

As with most of the Brexit related predictions though, the only honest answer on the impact on the CTA is "we don't know for sure".

And this is the crux of the matter – nothing can be guaranteed in a post-Brexit world.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

But Irish citizens are EU citizens?

Not sure I get your point there. Yes they are and I gather we both agree the UK would very likely not impose visa requirements or passport stamps for EU citizen to enter their territory. Hence, a Brexit would not really alter the nature of the CTO (the list of people who do or don't require a visa to enter British territory from Ireland would be the exact same as before).

Also don't forget Irish citizens have much stronger rights in UK law that other EU citizens. So if the question is around the treatment of Irish in the UK, UK national law specifically gives us the right to live and work there as we please and this would not disappear with a Brexit.

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this because as far as I’m concerned, the only people talking about closing borders are those in the Leave campaign.

Agreed to disagree. I haven't heard many people requesting the Ireland/UK border to be closed. Of course people are talking about reducing immigration flows and so on. But really it is a different topic.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, perhaps I should have said “complete free movement”.
But Irish citizens are EU citizens?
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this because as far as I’m concerned, the only people talking about closing borders are those in the Leave campaign.
And this is the crux of the matter – nothing can be guaranteed in a post-Brexit world.

Nobody in the Leave Campaign is talking about closing the border between Britain and Ireland. Both Farage and Boris have been very clear on this point. The Home Secretary has also conceded that this will not be the case.

The only people who are saying it may or will happen are "Remain" scaremongers - including your good self. I haven't had chance to speak to George Osborne yet, but when I asked you this morning why you thought this would happen, you were unable to provide me with a reason. You said something vague like "it would be an EU border and would have to be protected". So this morning, you believed that the EU would reinstate a physical border between Ireland and Britain, and this afternoon you say that the only people talking about borders are in the "Leave" campaign !

The CTA took precedence over Schengen here, and I cannot see any circumstances under which either a British or Irish government would reinstate a physical border. There are only a handful of politicians in Britain who might support that, and none that I know of in Ireland.

BlitzKrieg

Nobody in the Leave Campaign is talking about closing the border between Britain and Ireland. Both Farage and Boris have been very clear on this point. The Home Secretary has also conceded that this will not be the case.

Honestly I dont think you'll get much out of the leave side on the boarder beyond that they dont intend to enforce the boarder between northern ireland/republic, because it either leads to them admitting they have every intention of trying to join the EEA and still allow open travel.

Which if they admit is suicide for their entire campaign.


Or in the case of Farage and co, admitting that they dont care about the north and it could be swamped in their perceived mob of immigration through ireland. Which will while not as bad as above will still pretty much lose them a lot of votes because you can expect all of the north to vote against that idea and there will be a substantial % of mainland UK who are part of that *British Union core* will take offense at that notion.


it's also probably why you've heard this more from the remain campaign then the leave campaign, because like the immigration figures its a political football where both sides know the answer to the issue is the answer the other side doesnt want to say.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Ok I found the graph.

So yes you are correct that the CAP takes up a large % of regulations but not directives. But the paper itself emphasises that we shouldnt be giving more weight to those regulations, it highlights that there are more regulations in the CAP area not because there is more control exerting there or more importance given to that area but because regulations in the CAP are time sensitive and limited in effect. Its actually impossible for them to be incorporated into EEA law due to the length of delay it takes to process EU law to EEA law. By the time such regulations are processed into EEA law they will have expired and no longer in effect in the EU.

But it is important to note that the figure in the chart for regulations is not the entire list of regulatsions that have ever existed but rather the regulations that are in force at that particular time. Given that, it is reasonable to suggest that it does represent a legislative burden that Norway escapes by being a member of the EEA but not the EU. In some respects the fact that these regulations are constantly coming into force and then expiring to be replaced by new ones could be seen as something someone who values national sovereignty would especially glad to rid of.

whatever_

Lemming wrote: »

To add to what Dub has said, when I moved to the UK (with a job in hand I might add ... ), I worked on the NHS (England & Wales) website. I was one among several immigrants to work on the website either in a development or business analyst capacity, and of that number, take a wild guess at how many - myself included - were from EU member states ....

I would like whatever_ to take that guess and tell us all what they think the answer is. It puts the whole "mass-immigration" hysteria thing into perspective and shows just how dishonest the leave campaign has been on the matter.

Just to give you the full context to that snippet you have posted. Someone asserted that immigrant labour was better educated / qualified than the indigenous British labour force. The way I read that was that he was saying that the average immigrant was better educated than the average British worker. So, I refuted that, because clearly it's an irrelevant and ridiculous position. Obviously, many immigrants to Britain are very well qualified. I myself am an immigrant to Ireland. If you would clarify what it is you want me to take a guess at, I will try.

I don't see anyone getting hysterical about immigration. One of my key points about it is that it has kept wages artificially low. Of course there is some truth in the argument that immigrants do the work that would not otherwise be done. However, there is also a lot of truth in the argument that young people with mortgages and young children cannot afford to take zero hour contract work (or part time work) on very low wages. Exactly the same problem arises in Ireland and I do not think reducing social welfare is necessarily the answer. The problem arises because many immigrants do not have the same "running costs" as young families and are willing to work for less. Mass immigration into Britain has resulted in a lowering of living standards for the low paid. I think the figure is around a 10% reduction over the last ten years, which is shocking really.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

But it is important to note that the figure in the chart for regulations is not the entire list of regulatsions that have ever existed but rather the regulations that are in force at that particular time. Given that, it is reasonable to suggest that it does represent a legislative burden that Norway escapes by being a member of the EEA but not the EU. In some respects the fact that these regulations are constantly coming into force and then expiring to be replaced by new ones could be seen as something someone who values national sovereignty would especially glad to rid of.

I think you might be misunderstanding the very point the document you pointed to me made.

They state that the EU does have more regulations then the EEA at any one point becuase the EU creates a lot of temporary short term regulations that are only in effect for a short period.

The table you linked is a snapshot of the regulations in effect on july 1st 2008 in the EU and for 12/2010 for the EEA and the the document makes numerous points before showing the chart:

1. The process of adapting a regulation from EEA to EU is slow, they made the point that there are regulations still in effect in the EEA that are now gone in the EU because of how slow the EEA is to update. Thats why its 2 different dates and they insist that you need to take account that the number of regulations in the EU is not always increasing and that by 2010 the number of regulations the EU had may have decreased.

2. A lot of regulations (particularly with the CAP) are only temporary and wont exist in the EU by the time the EEA gets around to adapting them.


Put simply of those 7000 regulations a chunk of them dont exist anymore even in the EU, they were temporary.

its why the document goes to great lengths in the following chapter stressing that the number of regulations does not mean more interference, just the nature of certain fields requires more short term regulation while other areas could have only 1 regulation but it is much more extensive.

Its also why they spent the whole chapter leading up to these numbers stressing how genuinely impossible it is to give an accurate number of the EU/Norway laws

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


and read the following chapter.

Even with the butchered translation its very clear that its foolish to rely on a simple figure. They even highlight that comparing Norway's numbers to specific EU states will vary because not every regulation is applied by EU members or they may apply them differently.

as for regulations being short term, as the document again pointed out, in most of these cases its the nature of the field being legislated. That is probably better for individual member states, allowing them to keep a policy updating with the changes in the field and their own needs. Allowing regulations related to areas like agriculture or livestock to be adjusted on a regular basis to account for good or bad seasons etc over regulation that remains locked down to a 1999 outlook or worse seems to be a benefit for the active individual member states.

I remind you regulations are the EU laws that member states have the most freedom on how they apply them nationally and can even be ignored if they dont apply at all.

the more stringent EU laws are the directives and Norway signs up to 70% of them.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Not sure I get your point there.

…

Also don't forget Irish citizens have much stronger rights in UK law that other EU citizens. So if the question is around the treatment of Irish in the UK, UK national law specifically gives us the right to live and work there as we please and this would not disappear with a Brexit.

Sure – the UK technically already discriminates between Irish and other EU citizens as the “special relationship” between Britain and Ireland pre-dates the EU. However, I think post-Brexit, any attempt to extend such discrimination is likely to be met with fierce resistance among other EU states. I think you’ll even find some who would want it to end altogether.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

Nobody in the Leave Campaign is talking about closing the border between Britain and Ireland. Both Farage and Boris have been very clear on this point.

Which kind of contradicts all their talk about taking back control of their borders, doesn’t it? As said above, it puts them in a very difficult position. How can you claim to have control over your borders if the one land border your country has remains completely open?

Of course, the truth is that nobody in Britain really gives a toss about NI one way or the other.

whatever_ wrote: »

The only people who are saying it may or will happen are "Remain" scaremongers - including your good self. I haven't had chance to speak to George Osborne yet, but when I asked you this morning why you thought this would happen, you were unable to provide me with a reason.

I gave you a very clear reason – you just dismissed it.

whatever_ wrote: »

You said something vague like "it would be an EU border and would have to be protected".

Oh, so I did give you a reason then?

whatever_ wrote: »

So this morning, you believed that the EU would reinstate a physical border between Ireland and Britain, and this afternoon you say that the only people talking about borders are in the "Leave" campaign !

I never said anything about the EU reinstating a physical border – what happens to the border between the UK and Ireland post-Brexit is entirely up to the UK. As mentioned above, accepting that the border between NI and Ireland will remain open seems like tacit admission that the UK will apply to join the EEA post-Brexit. But of course, the Leave campaign have no intention of admitting that.

whatever_ wrote: »

Someone asserted that immigrant labour was better educated / qualified than the indigenous British labour force. The way I read that was that he was saying that the average immigrant was better educated than the average British worker. So, I refuted that, because clearly it's an irrelevant and ridiculous position.

No, it’s not:

Compared with their UK-born counterparts, the foreign-born workforce has become more educated

Based on the age at which individuals completed full-time education, between 1993 and 2014 there was an improvement in educational attainment for both foreign-born and UK-born workers (see Table 1). However, foreign-born men and women showed higher educational attainment than their UK-born counterparts during this period, with the educational attainment gap rising over time. Recently arrived foreign-born workers in particular have been more educated than both UK-born workers and all other migrants. In 2014, around 9% of recently arrived male foreign-born workers had only completed education up to 16 years of age, compared to 18% for all male foreign-born workers, and nearly 45% for UK-born men. In 2014, nearly one in two recent migrants was in the highest educational category compared to one in four UK-born workers.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-migrants-uk-labour-market#kp5

whatever_ wrote: »

One of my key points about it is that it has kept wages artificially low.

Has it really?

Wages of migrants have been converging with those of the UK-born, but A8 migrants have lower wages

Figure 7 plots the real hourly wage for foreign-born and UK-born men and women from 1993 to 2014. The analysis is limited to workers who are employees, both full-time and part-time, considering only their main job. To limit the effect of outliers, only observations with an hourly wage between one and a hundred pounds at 2014 levels are included. On average, women (both foreign-born and UK-born) earn lower hourly pay than men. For example in 2014 the real hourly wages for female UK-born and foreign-born were £12.2 and £12.4 respectively, while those for the male UK-born and foreign-born were respectively £15.2 and £14.6. Female migrants’ hourly earnings were higher than those of UK-born women during the entire period under consideration. There has, however, been a trend of convergence in recent years.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-migrants-uk-labour-market#kp6

Now, can we please put to bed the idea that we’re all unskilled, uneducated individuals with poor English who’ll work in crappy conditions for crap wages because we’re just grateful to have a job? Ta.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure – the UK technically already discriminates between Irish and other EU citizens as the “special relationship” between Britain and Ireland pre-dates the EU. However, I think post-Brexit, any attempt to extend such discrimination is likely to be met with fierce resistance among other EU states. I think you’ll even find some who would want it to end altogether.

Agreed, some countries would likely want to see an end to that relationship. But on the other end, they would also know that actually forcing Ireland to end it would make the EU look very anti-democratic and make the post-Brexit crisis and even deeper one (giving Ireland reasons to follow the UK would be a very dangerous game).