EU referendum

[jimbopm]

If we vote to leave the EU, we have to renegotiate what relationship we have with them, we are not guaranteed to simply be part of the EEA, though that would appear to the be the most logical outcome.

If we are to assume that we would become part of the EEA, then here's what we would be looking at.

First, yes we would be able to maintain our free trade relationship with the EU. However we would still be compelled to trade goods to the EU under their regulations. We would have 'regulation without representation' meaning the EU could change the rules for EEA members and we would have no say. Failure to abide to by the EU regulations could mean suspension from the EEA. Furthermore, we would be out of the Common Agricultural policy, something which is of huge benefit to Wales and Northern Ireland and we would also be out of the Common Fisheries Policy, possibly re-igniting tensions over who gets to fish where and how much they are allowed to catch.

Secondly, becoming an EEA member would also make no difference whatsoever to Intra-EU immigration because it is condition of free trade to also allow the free movement of people, other EEA members already agree to this.

Thirdly, becoming an EEA member would reduce our contribution to the EU budget, currently 0.5pc of GDP. We would then have to negotiate a continued payment to the EU budget to remain an EEA member. Again 'contribution without representation'. So what would our new payment to the EU look like? well the likelyhood is that the EU would probably not settle for much less that what we contribute already as this would be politically toxic. So you're probably looking at a payment similar to what Norway currently make, which would save us just 9%. We would also lose our negotiated rebate.

In summary if we joined the EEA.

- Free Trade, still having to comply with EU trade regulations, no future influence on the shaping of such regulations.
- Withdrawal from the CAP at a huge detrement to Wales and NI, unless the UK government picked up the slack of the subsidies currently paid.
- NO change on intra-EU immigration
- A likely minimal reduction in the contribution to EU budget, without rebate nor any influence in how that budget is spent.

 

[Metal Biker]

If this is true then all the outers that think we'll be saving billions are in for a shock, we'll still be paying to be in the EEA.

Not exactly as Norway's contributions to the EEA differ from an EU member states contributions to the EU, in the same respect China, Canada and the US for example pay to trade with the EU.
It's not possible to compare exactly how much an EEA member and an EU member in accordance to how much they pay, but it is fair to say that being a member of the EU costs considerably more than being a simple EEA member.

It's estimated the UK pays around £18bn annually into the EU. Given the amount Norway pays (as an example, but its nothing more than speculative at this point) it'd be about 5-10% of that towards the EEA, which is what we'd want to be paying anyway, so there'd still be a considerable saving by not paying into EU projects anymore. However Norway chooses itself to fund other EU incentives willingly, so their cost of contributions is higher still so Britain's could be even less than that. It's all speculation as it depends on what Britain would elect to pay towards following an exit, but it certainly would not be anything like what we pay now.

 

[blueonblue]

Nor is funding the BBC to promote "EU matters" a sign of a healthy relationship, but its happening.

Just to be perfectly clear on the role of the BBC, IT IS AGAINST ITS CHARTER to accept moneys to promote anything, yet it is doing just that.
So the EU collects money off this country under the guise of a trade club, they uses some of it to promote its own agenda against the national interest*.




*Surrender of sovereignty can only be against the national interest.

 

[grunge]

Not exactly as Norway's contributions to the EEA differ from an EU member states contributions to the EU, in the same respect China, Canada and the US for example pay to trade with the EU.
It's not possible to compare exactly how much an EEA member and an EU member in accordance to how much they pay, but it is fair to say that being a member of the EU costs considerably more than being a simple EEA member.

It's estimated the UK pays around £18bn annually into the EU. Given the amount Norway pays (as an example, but its nothing more than speculative at this point) it'd be about 5-10% of that towards the EEA, which is what we'd want to be paying anyway, so there'd still be a considerable saving by not paying into EU projects anymore. However Norway chooses itself to fund other EU incentives willingly, so their cost of contributions is higher still so Britain's could be even less than that. It's all speculation as it depends on what Britain would elect to pay towards following an exit, but it certainly would not be anything like what we pay now.

That's the thing with the Norway one, its paid per capita, so the exact same deal for us would be far more expensive.

According to this we would be paying £2.5-£4bn a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/16/britain-would-be-diminished-by-leaving-eu

With the rebate we have it would still save us £6-£8bn, but then, according to this, we would have no EMPS and no seat at the table but still have to abide by the EU laws.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

So in this case the outers don't really get anything they want out of the deal bar a saving in cash that this government would probably use to pay down the deficit rather than re invest.

 

[aguero93:20]

I did not propose we have a two house system at all. We have a multiple house system

Commons and Lords. 2.

 

[grunge]

Nor is funding the BBC to promote "EU matters" a sign of a healthy relationship, but its happening.

Just to be perfectly clear on the role of the BBC, IT IS AGAINST ITS CHARTER to accept moneys to promote anything, yet it is doing just that.
So the EU collects money off this country under the guise of a trade club, they uses some of it to promote its own agenda against the national interest*.

*Surrender of sovereignty can only be against the national interest.

Its a very subjective point, All EU members pay in ( I think the UK are the only one with a rebate so we par far less than others ). that money is then used to build a stronger EU, the countries that are struggling and could do better are helped out to build better economies, those then pay in more which then builds stronger economies. so being in and paying in, in the long run results in a more prosperous economy overall.

Well that's the theory anyway, its probably not so clear cut in reality. especially with the wobble the Euro had in the recession.

 

[cibaman]

It's a referendum on ending a political union with the EU, not being a member of the EEA. You've heard many times people saying "Britain should be like Norway"? Well, Norway is not a member of the EU, but is a member of the EEA, so it abides by the EU's trading laws without having any influence over decisions made regarding tariffs etc, but manages to govern itself independently over other issues not relating to trade. We'd be free to trade with BRICS, the Americas and Europe, and we're not subject to their governing laws, just as we voted for. (Welll, not me I wasn't born then)

People need to understand this. After all, it's not done Canada, Brazil, China, or the US any harm, and they aren't even members of the EEA, either. Trust me, if a debate about Britain's contuned membership of the EEA came up and flaws were found in that, (especially if the EU were being dicks about us leaving) then i'd be calling for a referendum on our membership.

Love Europe, hate the EU; that is my stance.

This is why being educated and understanding of what the Brexit means, what the EU is and what happens in the event of an exit without resorting to scaremongering about Britain being doomed, are essential to having this important debate about our membership.

Any 'Outer' reading this needs to understand that free movement of peoples, goods and services will not be affected by our exit and that as a member of the EEA (what we voted for back in the 70's) will still be in effect. Yes, we'd be allowed to control our borders, we'd be allowed to refuse the EU's declarations on accepting migrants and refugees, choosing our own accepted numbers or refusing entry entirely, but EU citizens would still be allowed to live and work in the UK as well as vice versa. That wouldn't change. There are some outers who want us to leave Europe completely (not my view) and there are those, like me, who want us to return to the original agreement offered in 1975, which IS what we'd be doing in the event of a 'Brexit'. Agriculture and fishing laws imposed by the EU would no longer have any effect on Britain. Policy making in Brussels would be null and void. TTIP, if imposed, would not be recognised by Britain. We'd join the US, China, Russia, Norway, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Iceland, India, Brazil, Canada, the UAE, Hong Kong, Algeria, South Africa and Nigeria as nations that trade with the EU, but are not governed by them, which is what we want.

A referendum on Britain being a member of the EEA is a debate for another time; this one is about leaving the totalitarian political 'union' with Europe, that sprang up and claimed dominance over the rest of us without anyone having a say on the matter.

The problem is that the various Leave campaigns are trying to avoid the debate about the UK's relationship with the EU post exit. They're campaigning on the basis of "They need us more than we need them". The notion that the EU will be so scared of jeopardising the 10% of their exports that go to the UK, that they'll hand over a free trade agreement with no strings attached. No contribution to the budget, no need to comply with any directives, especially the free movement of labour.

That might be a successful strategy as a means of winning the referendum, but it will create an unholy mess afterwards. The debate over which model would best suit the UK will only really start after the referendum. And the outers will be totally divided on what the UK's negotiating position should be. It will take months, probably well over a year, before they will be in a position to start serious negotiations with the EU.

"They need us more than we need them" also means that they will not have a real mandate to negotiate anything other than a free trade agreement with no strings attached. Any divergence from that position will not only create a huge split among the Outers, it will also leave them open to the argument that they won the referendum on a false prospectus. There is a huge majority of pro EU MP's in parliament and they will jump at the chance to use that as a justification for forcing a second referendum.

The outers will probably end up winning the battle but losing the war.

 

[blueonblue]

The notion that the EU will be so scared of jeopardising the 10% of their exports that go to the UK, that they'll hand over a free trade agreement with no strings attached. No contribution to the budget, no need to comply with any directives, especially the free movement of labour.

Er would that be like they have with every other country in the world ?, I dont see any free movement going to the USA or Japan, or hear that the yanks are paying some kind of membership fee to flog pepsi.
ANY exporter will have to meet the quality/ safety standards of the country it exports to, ours are equal or superior as a matter of course.

The EU will still be welcome to buy and sell with us, only a fool thinks they want a trade war of imposed tariffs because we would win it hands down.

 

[Benarbia_is_god]

Just seen on my Facebook timeline the stronger in Europe campaign advert which says "Which Swansea stars would be affected if we left the EU", I imagine the team changes depending where you are in the country. It seems to have backfired though, the majority of the comments are from Swansea fans celebrating the loss of Gomis whose image appears on the advert haha

 

[SWP's back]

Really...? And you think Mercedes, and all the other EU Businesses can cope without the UK market and subsidies? I don't think they can, will be an interesting scenario.

Sorry I'm not sure my sarcasm came through in written form.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Sorry I'm not sure my sarcasm came through in written form.

Sorry, my bad! 80)

 

[Metal Biker]

That's the thing with the Norway one, its paid per capita, so the exact same deal for us would be far more expensive.

According to this we would be paying £2.5-£4bn a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/16/britain-would-be-diminished-by-leaving-eu

With the rebate we have it would still save us £6-£8bn, but then, according to this, we would have no EMPS and no seat at the table but still have to abide by the EU laws.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

So in this case the outers don't really get anything they want out of the deal bar a saving in cash that this government would probably use to pay down the deficit rather than re invest.

We don't have to abide by EU laws, we only have to abide by the trading rules. The context of the language is really important here. No, we'd have no discussion at the table in regards to trading, just like China, India, the US etc. But just like China, India and the US, the UK will be governing itself which is the crux of many people's discussion. We no longer wish to be 'ruled' by Brussels.

What we have to pay to the EU can easily be made up by trading with BRICS, the US except we won't need the EU's red tape to get around things because we'll be dealing with those trading partners directly. I'm not fussed about how much money we'll not have to pay, i'm realistic that we'll need to pay something to the EU in order to keep trading with them. The point is I want us to be politically separated from the EU. True we might only have aroun £8bn a year better off, but £8bn a year better off and free to govern ourselves independently from Brussels, free to trade around the world as our own representative rather than having an unelected bureaucrat speak on our behalf?

 

[grunge]

We don't have to abide by EU laws, we only have to abide by the trading rules. The context of the language is really important here. No, we'd have no discussion at the table in regards to trading, just like China, India, the US etc. But just like China, India and the US, the UK will be governing itself which is the crux of many people's discussion. We no longer wish to be 'ruled' by Brussels.

What we have to pay to the EU can easily be made up by trading with BRICS, the US except we won't need the EU's red tape to get around things because we'll be dealing with those trading partners directly. I'm not fussed about how much money we'll not have to pay, i'm realistic that we'll need to pay something to the EU in order to keep trading with them. The point is I want us to be politically separated from the EU. True we might only have aroun £8bn a year better off, but £8bn a year better off and free to govern ourselves independently from Brussels, free to trade around the world as our own representative rather than having an unelected bureaucrat speak on our behalf?

Your good to talk to about this, reasoned and well versed in it by the look of it.

The only thing that would make me consider voting out is the TTP stuff, but then we will probably have to sign up for that anyways.

 

[Metal Biker]

The problem is that the various Leave campaigns are trying to avoid the debate about the UK's relationship with the EU post exit. They're campaigning on the basis of "They need us more than we need them". The notion that the EU will be so scared of jeopardising the 10% of their exports that go to the UK, that they'll hand over a free trade agreement with no strings attached. No contribution to the budget, no need to comply with any directives, especially the free movement of labour.

That might be a successful strategy as a means of winning the referendum, but it will create an unholy mess afterwards. The debate over which model would best suit the UK will only really start after the referendum. And the outers will be totally divided on what the UK's negotiating position should be. It will take months, probably well over a year, before they will be in a position to start serious negotiations with the EU.

"They need us more than we need them" also means that they will not have a real mandate to negotiate anything other than a free trade agreement with no strings attached. Any divergence from that position will not only create a huge split among the Outers, it will also leave them open to the argument that they won the referendum on a false prospectus. There is a huge majority of pro EU MP's in parliament and they will jump at the chance to use that as a justification for forcing a second referendum.

The outers will probably end up winning the battle but losing the war.

It's a good job that the members of the Leave campaign won't be negotiating with the EU, post exit, and if the European Commission wishes to be petty about mudslinging in a referendum campaign, i'd rather not deal with them, to be fair. Our government works for us and will, regardless of the result, negotiate the best deal possible. I'd like to think both sides can be mature and realstic about the connotations of either result.

 

[CityStu]

The only thing that would make me consider voting out is the TTP stuff, but then we will probably have to sign up for that anyways.

Why? If you don't want it then vote for a party that won't sign up for it. If another party gets into office that does want to sign up for it, protest it. All of that is much easier and your voice is much louder on a national level rather than a continental one.

 

[Metal Biker]

Your good to talk to about this, reasoned and well versed in it by the look of it.

The only thing that would make me consider voting out is the TTP stuff, but then we will probably have to sign up for that anyways.

The EU is definitely pushing TTIP on Europe, I believe it could be under pressure from the US more than anything, given the figures being bandied about of £100bn for Europe, the US and the world. That's a pretty nest egg they'll want to come to fruition but at a cost to the rest of us.

An exit would mean that, since it's an EU directive and not a EEA one, TTIP would not affect us if it came to pass after we left.

 

[Metal Biker]

Just seen on my Facebook timeline the stronger in Europe campaign advert which says "Which Swansea stars would be affected if we left the EU", I imagine the team changes depending where you are in the country. It seems to have backfired though, the majority of the comments are from Swansea fans celebrating the loss of Gomis whose image appears on the advert haha

This is the misinformation the SiE campaign occasionally trots out. Nothing would happen to non-EU and EU players as the exit we want is a political one. The rights to work and live within European countries would remain if Britain left the EU as the Free Movement Directive applies for the EEA, not solely EU member states, which in itself is a consolidation of a much older directive that was already in place before the EU was even formed. I do applaud the humour of the Swansea fans, though!

 

[grunge]

Why? If you don't want it then vote for a party that won't sign up for it. If another party gets into office that does want to sign up for it, protest it. All of that is much easier and your voice is much louder on a national level rather than a continental one.

Because it will probably be in force before the next general election!. If leaving the EU Guaranteed not being included in it then it would be a feather in the bow of the out campaign for me.

 

[grunge]

The EU is definitely pushing TTIP on Europe, I believe it could be under pressure from the US more than anything, given the figures being bandied about of £100bn for Europe, the US and the world. That's a pretty nest egg they'll want to come to fruition but at a cost to the rest of us.

An exit would mean that, since it's an EU directive and not a EEA one, TTIP would not affect us if it came to pass after we left.

Thats the thing, if they are forcing it on the EU then they will be able to force it on us if they choose too. assuming we want to trade with the USA. same goes for the likes of China.

If they are big enough to bully the EU they are big enough to stomp on us.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

The EU is definitely pushing TTIP on Europe, I believe it could be under pressure from the US more than anything, given the figures being bandied about of £100bn for Europe, the US and the world. That's a pretty nest egg they'll want to come to fruition but at a cost to the rest of us.

An exit would mean that, since it's an EU directive and not a EEA one, TTIP would not affect us if it came to pass after we left.

It would, as would TPP