OutByEaster? Posted February 21, 2016 Moderator Posted February 21, 2016 Awol is absolutely right on trade - trade won't suffer - governments will not be allowed to interfere with that, whether we remain or exit the EU.
Awol Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: And indeed the effort to make people fearful of taking a bold decision to change from an outward looking globally focused European view to an inward looking isolated British one. (Both statements are nothing more than an emotional plea to the heartstrings, I just thought I'd give a bit of balance.) Incidentally, today on the news I caught David Cameron using the phrase "If you love your country" as part of his Remain campaign. If we're starting on this footing then there really isn't a lot of hope for a reasoned debate with facts at the heart of it. On TTIP, it is a US-EU negotiation. If we are not in the EU we are not in TTIP. On the in out shake it all about scenario, it's not being emotive. The EU is a protectionist customs union designed to protect internal industries by raising tariffs against foreign producers. Leaving that in favour of focusing on global markets can't possibly be portrayed as inward looking, little Englander etc. On Mr Mooney's point the remain campaign is supported by such notables as Cameron, Osborne, Tony Blair, the US Government, the fabled 1% and the worst of the banksters. I don't think attaching your support to one side or another because you dislike someone on the other side is a sensible proposition. 1
snowychap Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 24 minutes ago, Awol said: On both a practical (UK as Germany's largest export market) and legal (WTO rules) level, I think trade tariffs are a none starter. 5 minutes ago, Awol said: The EU is a protectionist customs union designed to protect internal industries by raising tariffs against foreign producers. Apologies for just picking out two comments from your well-made arguments (they are even if I don't agree with some of them) but there appears to be an inconsistency here.
Dale Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 I don't think that the negotiations for us to be the exception were the way to go about anything - we should have been advocating for Europe-wide change, and also the fact is we've gone ridiculously populist on the things we advocated for, with too much emphasis on migration. Thankfully the changes won't impact the employment or consumer protections that are codified in European law, things that stopped Osbourne's plans for 'employment rights for shareholding' plans and the like. A lot of what Europe done is more beneficial to the little guy than what our own government do, it's not quite as neo-liberal as the UK Conservative party, but the traditionin Europe is arguably more co-operative than back here. FWIW, I think it's easier to feel integrated on the continent than here... But I feel like we're net beneficiaries of the relationship.
tonyh29 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 27 minutes ago, mjmooney said: So, following on from my earlier rant, if people are going to vote for economically ill-informed, emotive knee-jerk reasons, I may as well do the same. The "No" camp now has Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. That's good enough for me. A "Yes" vote it is. To be clear you are talking about the in campaign here in your first paragraph aren't you ? your second paragraph I refer you to a comment I made earlier today ... its a potentially important decision we have to make at least do it for the right reasons , it would be like me saying I won't vote Yes because Corbyn wants yes and he didn't sing the national anthem one time ... it's daft isn't it and you don't strike me as being daft 1
mjmooney Posted February 21, 2016 VT Supporter Posted February 21, 2016 1 minute ago, tonyh29 said: To be clear you are talking about the in campaign here in your first paragraph aren't you ? your second paragraph I refer you to a comment I made earlier today ... its a potentially important decision we have to make at least do it for the right reasons , it would be like me saying I won't vote Yes because Corbyn wants yes and he didn't sing the national anthem one time ... it's daft isn't it and you don't strike me as being daft Exactly. Proves my earlier point, that this massive national decision is going to be decided by idiots. Possibly including me. 4
limpid Posted February 21, 2016 Administrator Posted February 21, 2016 I've spent a few hours looking into this and I'm now clearer than when I started. 38degrees are doing a member survey about what they should do for this and I've voted that they should be neutral and produce some impartial advice. 2
Awol Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 22 minutes ago, snowychap said: Apologies for just picking out two comments from your well-made arguments (they are even if I don't agree with some of them) but there appears to be an inconsistency here. It would be inconsistent, were it not the case that the EU is obliged to negotiate a free trade deal with a leaving member state . The existing tariffs are aimed heavily at specific groups such as very poor African food producers, in order to protect French farmers. Can't have them trading their way out of poverty, what would the NGO industry do for a living?!
meregreen Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Genie said: I think we'll be safer out of the EU. Business wise I dont really expect any major problems being out. Kinda off topic but I predict Germany are going to be in a world of pain over the next few years taking in around 1 million migrants. Time will tell on that, I dont want the UK to go down that road and "out" seems to given more control over who we're living with. Actually, things on that issue could get much worse if we exit. At the moment the Calais refugee camp is there, specifically because we have an agreement with the French to site British passport control on their soil. If we Brexit, you can be pretty sure the French will pull out of that agreement. Meaning we will be back to the previous set up, where passport control is in Dover. That should be fun.The asylum seekers aren't even European, so being in or out isn't going to stop them. Brexit will, unless we literally drive them into the sea, actually make the situation worse.
snowychap Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Awol said: It would be inconsistent, were it not the case that the EU is obliged to negotiate a free trade deal with a leaving member state . They may be obliged to negotiate some sort of free trade deal but what kind of free trade deal would it be? Not all 'free trade deals' are the same are they? My point was that, if one refers to the EU as a protectionist customs union designed to protect internal industries by raising tariffs against foreign producers then it seems inconsistent to assume that, even if they are obliged to negotiate some sort of free trade deal with an exiting member, tariffs are a non starter (i.e. that all goods would necessarily be included in an all encompassing free trade agreement). Edit: Earlier you said that Article 50 of TEU says that one of the areas to be addressed during the two year political divorce is the negotiation of a free trade agreement between the EU and the departing country. Where does it say this? Edited February 21, 2016 by snowychap
snowychap Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, snowychap said: Edit: Earlier you said that Article 50 of TEU says that one of the areas to be addressed during the two year political divorce is the negotiation of a free trade agreement between the EU and the departing country. Where does it say this? On that question, here's an extract from a blog on Article 50 by Professor Steve Peers: Quote Secondly, as to the content of the negotiations, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal arrangement, not a deal on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This is obvious from the wording of Article 50(2), which refers only to taking account of that ‘future relationship’ in the withdrawal arrangement. In practice, the details of the withdrawal arrangement and the treaty establishing that future relationship would be closely linked. Probably the withdrawal treaty would, among other things, aim to regulate a transition period before the treaty on the future relationship entered into force. In this context, it should be noted that (contrary to what is sometimes asserted), there’s no legal obligation for the remaining EU to sign a free trade agreement with the UK. The words ‘future relationship’ assume that there would be some treaties between the UK and the EU post-Brexit, but do not specify what their content would be. This point is politically significant because while the withdrawal arrangement would be negotiated by a qualified majority, most of the EU’s free trade agreements are in practice ‘mixed agreements’, ie requiring the consent of the EU institutions and ratification by all of the Member States. That’s because those agreements usually contain rules going outside the scope of the EU’s trade policy. While it seems likely that in practice the remaining EU would be willing to enter into a trade agreement with the UK (see, for instance, the ‘gaming’ exercise conducted by Open Europe), the unanimity requirement would complicate this. 1
Genie Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 46 minutes ago, meregreen said: Actually, things on that issue could get much worse if we exit. At the moment the Calais refugee camp is there, specifically because we have an agreement with the French to site British passport control on their soil. If we Brexit, you can be pretty sure the French will pull out of that agreement. Meaning we will be back to the previous set up, where passport control is in Dover. That should be fun.The asylum seekers aren't even European, so being in or out isn't going to stop them. Brexit will, unless we literally drive them into the sea, actually make the situation worse. I thought this "scaremongering" by DC was already confirmed as very unlikely if we leave? Even if it was the case, at least we'd be free to send them away or decide on their entitlements if that is what we wanted.
villakram Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 The year 2017: President of the USA: Donald Trump PM of UK: Boris Johnson (aka British Trump)
OutByEaster? Posted February 21, 2016 Moderator Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Awol said: I don't think attaching your support to one side or another because you dislike someone on the other side is a sensible proposition. I absolutely agree, and indeed it's the thing that's most difficult for me in terms of the vote. I am genuinely undecided, but the people who are pushing the choices (Cameron and the Ins and the equally right wing and 1% Outs of Johnson and Gove) pretty much all sicken me in terms of their world view. If I felt the EU was even halfway decent I'd be desperately trying to opt out of the UK - but given that that's very difficult, I'm trying hard to ignore the personalities and try to find clear information rather than information with a huge slant in one direction - sadly, at this stage all there is is personality. For me it's about whether the EU will do more to help or hinder that UK government and its aims - if the answer to that is 'hinder', I'm in. 1
OutByEaster? Posted February 21, 2016 Moderator Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Awol said: On TTIP, it is a US-EU negotiation. If we are not in the EU we are not in TTIP. You're right. My apologies. What's really worrying about that is that the US is talking about imposing trade restrictions on us if we drop out of the EU. The EU are bound by treaty to maintain trade links with us but the US is "not particularly in the market for FTAs with individual countries" apparently and will impose the same barriers they will to other countries that are opting out of the US global takeover. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/29/us-warns-britain-it-could-face-trade-barriers-if-it-leaves-eu “We have no FTA with the UK so they would be subject to the same tariffs – and other trade-related measures – as China, or Brazil or India,” Turkish President Mr Erdogan made a special visit to Washington to beg to be included in the TTIP group - because there is a real danger in being outside it. The US isn't going to let its efforts to tie down the global economy in advance of China getting hold of it be affected by our reticence to remain in the EU. On that basis alone, I have a feeling that the vote will somehow find a way to end up as one to remain. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/eu-exit-risks-us-trade-deal The TTIP will aim to remove the relatively low tariffs of about 3% to 5% between the US and Europe, but its greatest impact will be felt in promoting investment in both directions largely by the convergence of regulations on either side of the Atlantic. One of the greatest potential advantages for the EU would be the opening up of tenders at the US state level to European suppliers. But in return, Europe would have to give up existing protections on its agriculture, film industry and public services. US companies aren't going to go to the trouble of dealing with a single nation and its legal regulations on things like food safety when they have a free market that includes much of the worlds economy to play with already, there will be additional cost, and that additional cost will be passed on to the offending nation. In terms of trade, whilst Europe will need to trade with us, they won't want to have separate production lines that make things to (higher) UK standards. That's the trade danger I think. So there's this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-we-cant-protect-ourselves-from-ttip-by-leaving-europe-heres-why-a6853876.html The 'Norway option' where we're forced to adopt the rules and regulations on trade that are set by the EU in order to trade with them, even though we're not a member and we have no say in those rules. Colloquially known as the ‘Norway option’, this would involve the UK continuing to apply many of the rules of the EU while accepting a much reduced ability to shape and steer them. Under this scenario, the UK would still have to implement all of the changes in EU legislation that derive from TTIP. Yet, we would have a much reduced ability to influence its negotiation. So, if we leave the EU, the EU will still be bound to trade with us, but this trade will take place on their terms and their terms are likely to be TTIP at some point soon. If we leave, the US will put us in the pile of countries that decided they didn't want to be part of their particular empire and it'll affect trade with them. If we stay, we get to give up our freedom of regulation, and large chunks of our democracy to global corporations and banks and if we leave, we'll probably do that anyway. I'm not sure if that makes me more or less keen to leave the EU. It does make me keener to leave the planet. 1
Fairy In Boots Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Out wild horses wouldn't get me to vote IN.
meregreen Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 In, common sense wouldn't get me to vote out.
mjmooney Posted February 21, 2016 VT Supporter Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: To be clear you are talking about the in campaign here in your first paragraph aren't you ? your second paragraph I refer you to a comment I made earlier today ... its a potentially important decision we have to make at least do it for the right reasons , it would be like me saying I won't vote Yes because Corbyn wants yes and he didn't sing the national anthem one time ... it's daft isn't it and you don't strike me as being daft And yet that's how democracy works. We don't go through the minutiae of every issue, we leave it up to the politicians. And we have a GENERAL idea of what parties stand for. I've voted Labour all my life - even when they were far too right wing for my liking - because even New Labour were less loathesome than the Tories. This issue doesn't divide neatly on party lines, but my gut feeling is that if Cameron and Corbyn can agree on something (albeit for different reasons), that inspires more confidence than something favoured by tossers like Farage/Johnson/Galloway/Gove.
rendelc Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 U.K. Population set to rise by 10 million in the next 20 years . Common sense tells me to get Out .
meregreen Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Genie said: I thought this "scaremongering" by DC was already confirmed as very unlikely if we leave? Even if it was the case, at least we'd be free to send them away or decide on their entitlements if that is what we wanted. It's not scaremongering. The people camped at Sangat are not EU citizens. They have no right to anything here through the EU. We provide help to them on humanitarian grounds. Leave the EU though, and we are likely to see far more of them, as the French simply wont regard stopping them at Calais as a necessity.
Recommended Posts