Sign in to follow this  
Saint Toppy

Our new position in the EU

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Griff9of13 said:

So it's lose, lose or lose. remind me again of the benefits of leaving the EU? :dry: 

Our net payments to the EU equate to 0.04% I believe, so where's the £350m a year for the NHS (and/or all the other things the money hs been promised to) going to come from?

With the three options you highlight it probably is lose-lose but not necessarily with the other options. The FTA with the EU option would see financial services lose out but would likely see (modest) increases in the wages of low earners.

On paper your assessment is correct. However, where I differ from you is taking the following into account:

1. The political reality in countries like Austria, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary etc

2. The fact that the EU is going to become far more centred around the problematic single currency, which will see us sidelined as non members 

3. There would be very severe political consequences of overturning a free and fair democratic vote

Taking the above into account plus the ability to free up trade with the rest of the world by leaving the customs union then I think the most positive solution is joining EFTA. 

If the Trade in Services Agreement comes into action and if the USA elect a more benign government that gives us a reasonable free trade deal then I think the FTA with the EU option could work. 

I don't think the FTA only with the USA option, the WTO option or the Customs Union only option are worth considering 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bowes said:

1. The political reality in countries like Austria, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary etc

2. The fact that the EU is going to become far more centred around the problematic single currency, which will see us sidelined as non members 

3. There would be very severe political consequences of overturning a free and fair democratic vote

1. I don't see how our being in/out of the EU will make any difference of the impact on the UK.

2. How could we possibly be more sidelined than leaving the EU?

3. It was an advisory referendum and not legally binding. What consequences do you foresee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancer treatment threat from Brexit.  I deliberately chose the very pro-Brexit Telegraph for this story.

The government really do seem to be sleeping into chaos with nuclear materials as we're already past minimum deadlines to get it sorted if there's a "no deal" scenario.  It's now completely out of our hands and in the good-will of the EU to keep us going by breaking their own rules, unless we decide that Brexit really is a catastrophic mistake and say "sorry, we had a brain fart before and are now staying".  It really is that simple, we've messed around with an unneeded election and 19 months of political shambles since the EU referendum back in 2016 and we still haven't even made a first solid proposal for what we'll do with our nuclear regulation.

We can't do it ourselves as we've left it too late.

We can't get any sort of associate status with EURATOM as we've left it too late.

This was brought up back in 2016 and was called scaremongering because we'd fix it.  It was brought up again in early 2017, same response.  It was brought up last summer as "you've left it too late", the government ignored it because to do anything else would appear weak in their rather deluded minds.

But I suppose we will be "free" though... that's alright then.

Just suck it up and at least say "we made a mistake with EURATOM and want to stay now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ckn said:

their own rules, unless we decide that Brexit really is a catastrophic mistake and say "sorry, we had a brain fart before and are now staying".  It really is that simple, we've messed around with an unneeded election and 19 months of political shambles since the EU referendum back in 2016 and we still haven't even made a first solid proposal for what we'll do with our nucl

 

26 minutes ago, ckn said:

Cancer treatment threat from Brexit.  I deliberately chose the very pro-Brexit Telegraph for this story.

The government really do seem to be sleeping into chaos with nuclear materials as we're already past minimum deadlines to get it sorted if there's a "no deal" scenario.  It's now completely out of our hands and in the good-will of the EU to keep us going by breaking their own rules, unless we decide that Brexit really is a catastrophic mistake and say "sorry, we had a brain fart before and are now staying".  It really is that simple, we've messed around with an unneeded election and 19 months of political shambles since the EU referendum back in 2016 and we still haven't even made a first solid proposal for what we'll do with our nuclear regulation.

We can't do it ourselves as we've left it too late.

We can't get any sort of associate status with EURATOM as we've left it too late.

This was brought up back in 2016 and was called scaremongering because we'd fix it.  It was brought up again in early 2017, same response.  It was brought up last summer as "you've left it too late", the government ignored it because to do anything else would appear weak in their rather deluded minds.

But I suppose we will be "free" though... that's alright then.

Just suck it up and at least say "we made a mistake with EURATOM and want to stay now".

 

A waste of breath, if we can stop the immigrants I don't care is the mantra, the whole country can go to the dogs as long as we stop the wogs and polish from doing the jobs we won't do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

1. I don't see how our being in/out of the EU will make any difference of the impact on the UK.

2. How could we possibly be more sidelined than leaving the EU?

3. It was an advisory referendum and not legally binding. What consequences do you foresee?

The advisory argument is very poor. There may not be a legal consequence but the political backlash would be very severe. You're thinking about this too much from a Remainer perspective and aren't quite grasping other people's perspective. The anger against mainstream parties who overturned a free and fair vote would leave the door open to a populist backlash. Given how little a difference it would make to the economy to join EFTA this really isn't a price worth paying.

Think about Catalonia to get a better idea of how well overturning a democratic referendum result goes down 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bowes said:

The advisory argument is very poor. There may not be a legal consequence but the political backlash would be very severe. You're thinking about this too much from a Remainer perspective and aren't quite grasping other people's perspective. The anger against mainstream parties who overturned a free and fair vote would leave the door open to a populist backlash. Given how little a difference it would make to the economy to join EFTA this really isn't a price worth paying.

Think about Catalonia to get a better idea of how well overturning a democratic referendum result goes down 

I agree with you here.

There is no politician that has greater credibility than a national referendum result.

There is a case for a second referendum once a few years has passed and there might be clarity on what is emerging.  That timing might not suit many people on either side, but referenda are powerful blunt weapons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I agree with you here.

There is no politician that has greater credibility than a national referendum result.

There is a case for a second referendum once a few years has passed and there might be clarity on what is emerging.  That timing might not suit many people on either side, but referenda are powerful blunt weapons.

Yeah I really don't get how people can think the population would accept the overturning of the largest ever democratic mandate the country's ever known purely because there are economic projections showing the economy will be 1-2% smaller in 2030. Aside from the uncertainty of projections, we could easily end up paying much more than that bailing out Spain and Italy if we stay in the EU.

Of course if the EU goes through major reform we could justify a second referendum. We're powerless to make this reform as members though especially whilst Macron is still around 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gingerjon said:

The truth is you never know what the public will accept until you test it.

Which would suggest that we should have regular referenda.  

Personally, I think it is far too soon because;
- Elections of any kind are disruptive
- To the large majority of people (who are not politically engaged), not much has altered.

Most peoples' knowledge of politics is akin to my knowledge of Championship football.  I am sure lots has happened, but my opinion has not altered.  And, at the moment, what would we be voting on?  The same question again?  That does seem like not accepting the answer.  

If there is a clear outline of the proposed deal (which might not happen as it would be political suicide for May), then the case for a new referendum, when there would be a new thing to vote on, would be clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Which would suggest that we should have regular referenda.  

Personally, I think it is far too soon because;
- Elections of any kind are disruptive
- To the large majority of people (who are not politically engaged), not much has altered.

Most peoples' knowledge of politics is akin to my knowledge of Championship football.  I am sure lots has happened, but my opinion has not altered.  And, at the moment, what would we be voting on?  The same question again?  That does seem like not accepting the answer.  

If there is a clear outline of the proposed deal (which might not happen as it would be political suicide for May), then the case for a new referendum, when there would be a new thing to vote on, would be clearer.

You’re replying to points I didn’t make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The truth is you never know what the public will accept until you test it.

 

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You’re replying to points I didn’t make.

You were admirably brief.  

That does leave a lot of room for various interpretations. 

It is a bit like a referendum question that reads "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2018 at 4:49 PM, Saintslass said:

The overseas investment for car production was actually initiated by Margaret Thatcher, in North East England with Nissan.  

I take it you are ignoring, or have forgotten about or even are not aware of investments were made by Ford , Vauxhall etc, long, long before Margaret Thatcher came to power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2018 at 7:25 PM, bowes said:

The main one is being able to have freer trade with the world outside the EU, especially the growing economies of the Pacific Rim region, but also we'd gain greater control of agriculture and fishing.

The CAP isn't a great deal for us due to being a relatively urban society, though a fair case came be made for our rebate being conpensation for this. Also we have a lot of water so having control of our fishing stock would be better.

For me I see the Euro as a liability and outside the EU we're much less likely to have to bail out countries like Italy. 

These are the improvements of a Norway model which personally I'd be happy with. They'd come with no economic costs other than some customs checks on agricultural products.

If we wished to adopt a different immigration policy (some would prefer a stricter regime; personally I'd just prefer a more balanced system that prioritises skills over how European someone is, even if it meant numbers increasing) then we could sign an Association Agreement with the EU and keep regulatory alignment. However, we'd probably lose financial services passporting to get that (I expect we'd have free trade in other services).

The third option, which isn't what I'd want, would be a free trade deal in goods only but as well as the above would let us set our own regulations entirely. I could support this if it meant us working closer with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and keeping similar standards to now, but wouldn't support tearing up environmental protections, employment rights, health and safety etc. I don't particularly agree with these regulations being set in Brussels but it's preferable than them being set in Washington or Beijing. Theresa May would never slash standards but someone like Jacob Rees Mogg probably would 

You seem to be very keen on pressing the agenda for these countries. There are five EU countries - Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland  (as well as currently the UK) with larger populations than even the most populous country you name (Canada). And you expect them to be able to provide similar trading opportunities to the EU?

Of course, they are all a lot further away than the EU, that could be a problem. The sun has set on the British Empire, and it won't rise again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Billypop said:

You seem to be very keen on pressing the agenda for these countries. There are five EU countries - Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland  (as well as currently the UK) with larger populations than even the most populous country you name (Canada). And you expect them to be able to provide similar trading opportunities to the EU?

Of course, they are all a lot further away than the EU, that could be a problem. The sun has set on the British Empire, and it won't rise again.

I agree the EU markets are important but that comment was in the context of joining EFTA which would mean we'd have both the European markets and those of the Pacific Rim region.

By 2050 Indonesia will have an economy half the size of that of the entire EU27. Why not start making inroads now if we don't even have to give up single market membership to be able to sign our own trade deals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bowes said:

I agree the EU markets are important but that comment was in the context of joining EFTA which would mean we'd have both the European markets and those of the Pacific Rim region.

By 2050 Indonesia will have an economy half the size of that of the entire EU27. Why not start making inroads now if we don't even have to give up single market membership to be able to sign our own trade deals?

2050 is still rather a long way off.  Even assuming that prediction is met, the gravity model would suggest we are still going to have far, far more trade with the EU.

I can see a model in EFTA with a great deal with North America, that would leave the UK better off that in the EU.  That said, I personally struggle to see that happening.  We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Billypop said:

You seem to be very keen on pressing the agenda for these countries. There are five EU countries - Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland  (as well as currently the UK) with larger populations than even the most populous country you name (Canada). And you expect them to be able to provide similar trading opportunities to the EU?

Of course, they are all a lot further away than the EU, that could be a problem. The sun has set on the British Empire, and it won't rise again.

Don't forget EU members have a shiny new trade deal with Japan, covers something like 30% of global GDP, by doing nothing!  Yet to see anything from the Brexit powers that be that indicates we'll get anything like that sort of trade access any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2018 at 4:10 PM, Griff9of13 said:

Now? How could a privately educated, former city trader turned career politician millionaire be anything but the establishment? :unsure:

 

You are of course right, but having a Lord rock up on his own show, preaching to his own choir and tell him, well amused me anyhow and caught him on the back foot!

Speaking of Farage, a little gentle teasing from the Continent caught my eye earlier.................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

2050 is still rather a long way off.  Even assuming that prediction is met, the gravity model would suggest we are still going to have far, far more trade with the EU.

I can see a model in EFTA with a great deal with North America, that would leave the UK better off that in the EU.  That said, I personally struggle to see that happening.  We shall see.

Yes though even looking at 2030 the balance of the global economy is quite changed. Yes EFTA plus North America would be a lot better than EU membership. Depends a lot on American domestic politics 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Tusk today..... "it's not too late for the UK to abandon brexit".

That isn't the fist time Tusk has said that and it won't be the last.  He's just doing his usual stirring of the pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

That isn't the fist time Tusk has said that and it won't be the last.  He's just doing his usual stirring of the pot.

Fine by me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Jan 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here