Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

That was always my stance since the EU told Cameron to go fudge himself.

That we should show that there is a clear mandate to leave in order to pressure the EU into renegotiation. I still think that we can get the best result for us out of this, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed xenophobes.

indeed

 

[parklane1]

does that not make it appear that there were actually 3 sides to this, remain, leave, re-negotiate?

Is that not what Cameron said he was going to do? he went over there all guns blazing and came back with a empty gun and nothing.

 

[indianspur]

We conform to everything. No other country is as conformed to EU standards as us. From the curve of a banana to the grain size in children's sand boxes (yes, there is a standard for that too).

Yeah but as Scara said these are product standards

What else apart from product standards does Norway have to confirm to

 

[parklane1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36637732

But we are doomed i tell thee doomed. The vote was Thursday and 4 days later the world is coming to a end according to the doom mongers.

 

[Jordinho]

Yeah but as Scara said these are product standards

What else apart from product standards does Norway have to confirm to

From wiki:

The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EEA countries that are not part of the EU enjoy free trade with the European Union. Also, '[t]he free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA) ... t is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.'

As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. However they also contribute to and influence the formation of new EEA relevant policies and legislation at an early stage as part of a formal decision-shaping process.

Agriculture and fisheries are not covered by the EEA. Not being bound by the Common Fisheries Policy is perceived as very important by Norway and Iceland, and a major reason not to join the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy would mean giving away fishing quotas in their waters.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market. After the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004, there was a tenfold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years). Non-EU countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU can take part in some EU programmes such as Trans-European Networks and European Regional Development Fund, but will have to contribute with funds that the EU normally contributes.

 

[scaramanga]

From wiki:

The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EEA countries that are not part of the EU enjoy free trade with the European Union. Also, '[t]he free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA) ... t is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.'

As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. However they also contribute to and influence the formation of new EEA relevant policies and legislation at an early stage as part of a formal decision-shaping process.

Agriculture and fisheries are not covered by the EEA. Not being bound by the Common Fisheries Policy is perceived as very important by Norway and Iceland, and a major reason not to join the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy would mean giving away fishing quotas in their waters.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market. After the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004, there was a tenfold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years). Non-EU countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU can take part in some EU programmes such as Trans-European Networks and European Regional Development Fund, but will have to contribute with funds that the EU normally contributes.

I shouldn't think we'll be entering into any agreements where we take on laws that are not product-related.

 

[Jordinho]

I shouldn't think we'll be entering into any agreements where we take on laws that are not product-related.

You'll struggle to find a way to get rid of all the foreigners stealing jobs though and of course some level of financial contribution will still be expected. This whole situation is a bit of a joke really. Nobody will get what they want and everybody will be left unhappy.

 

[scaramanga]

You'll struggle to find a way to get rid of all the foreigners stealing jobs though and of course some level of financial contribution will still be expected. This whole situation is a bit of a joke really. Nobody will get what they want and everybody will be left unhappy.

I don't think that stopping free movement was ever on the cards. Neither do I think it's an economically viable option for a country that relies so much on importing labour.

Free trade, free movement, a very small (if any) contribution should be the limit of our offer.

 

[milo]

I shouldn't think we'll be entering into any agreements where we take on laws that are not product-related.

We are not going to get an agreement that gives us un-tariffed access to the EEA if we are in a position to undercut EU countries on employment terms. As a minimum we will have to follow EU employment and product regulations. They will also require us to pay for access, I would expect our contributions to be similar to they are now.

I do not know of a club in the world that offers better terms to non-members than it does to members.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Do you genuinely think it will get worse?

There's absolutely no way that we will end up with a deal that is worse than we have with the EU. Even at worst case, the tariffs will be less than our cost of membership but nobody is suggesting an end result that doesn't include free trade as far as I can see. Even the EU are talking around that.

On top of our business as usual with the EU, we will also have the ability to trade worldwide without prohibitive barriers. Unless we end up stubbornly refusing to accept freedom of movement in the negotiations, there isn't a scenario in which we are worse off.

That is the one problem though. Wanting free trade and full control of our borders is wanting our cake and eating it too.

And as it appears that immigration (in all its guises) is high on the list of many leavers, how would the political negotiators square that with them? Obviously there is a lot of space between 'open borders' and 'pulling up the draw bridge', perhaps a solution can be reached across the whole issue?

 

[scaramanga]

We are not going to get an agreement that gives us un-tariffed access to the EEA if we are in a position to undercut EU countries on employment terms. As a minimum we will have to follow EU employment and product regulations. They will also require us to pay for access, I would expect our contributions to be similar to they are now.

I do not know of a club in the world that offers better terms to non-members than it does to members.

One that needs a non-member to stop it falling apart?

 

[scaramanga]

That is the one problem though. Wanting free trade and full control of our borders is wanting our cake and eating it too.

And as it appears that immigration (in all its guises) is high on the list of many leavers, how would the political negotiators square that with them? Obviously there is a lot of space between 'open borders' and 'pulling up the draw bridge', perhaps a solution can be reached across the whole issue?

They won't get a stop of free movement - nobody will be able to deliver that.

 

[parklane1]

One that needs a non-member to stop it falling apart?

That is a good point, the EU is a busted flush ( as it stands at the moment) we have already seen movement in Italy, France, Holland, Spain by groups who want a referendum about out. It may turn out that we could arrange something that would be in our benefit and stop the EU falling apart.

 

[monkeybarry]

Do you genuinely think it will get worse?

There's absolutely no way that we will end up with a deal that is worse than we have with the EU. Even at worst case, the tariffs will be less than our cost of membership but nobody is suggesting an end result that doesn't include free trade as far as I can see. Even the EU are talking around that.

On top of our business as usual with the EU, we will also have the ability to trade worldwide without prohibitive barriers. Unless we end up stubbornly refusing to accept freedom of movement in the negotiations, there isn't a scenario in which we are worse off.

Yes.
Two- four years of economic instability after which a new equilibrium will be reached. That equilibrium will be much lower than one month ago and a lot of people at the bottom and in the middle will suffer (except home owners).
After 4-5 years there will be an upturn which is sold as "progress" and "vindication" of leaving. The people will believe it because they are short termist mentally.
With good performance and the right leadership the UK as a whole might be able to get into a slightly stronger position than it was, but certainly not the world concurring growth than people envisage.

It will take a large number of individuals alot like longer to repair the damage to their lives and they certainly won't get the years back.

All because a xenophob was bored being a banker and Boris wanted his go at playing the Bullingdon club game.

 

[monkeybarry]

The German vice-chancellor was interviewed on the radio this morning. I did not hear the beginning of his interview but what he appeared to be saying was that access to the single market could be negotiated but there would have to be some freedom of movement (but not necessarily full freedom of movement), and the UK would be expected to contribute to the EU budget - you don't get anything for free.
Obviously anything that is said now (by either side) is conditioning for the forthcoming negotiation. However there is a real risk that if we do keep access to the single market with those conditions or similar, there will be a very unhappy 50% of the electorate and more fuel for the UKIP fire.

52% of the UK are not xenophobic
Boris played a blinder.
When he backtracks on freedom of movement, who is going protest against him? The minority of xenophobics? They'll just be squashed down as Proles again. And they are hardly going to get any support from the Remain voters. People will realise it's just a power grab and vote him out after 3 years, but the options at that point will be a Tory majority or long term coalition's with Tory majorities.
And Boris still gets to play PM for a while.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

From wiki:

The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EEA countries that are not part of the EU enjoy free trade with the European Union. Also, '[t]he free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA) ... t is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.'

As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. However they also contribute to and influence the formation of new EEA relevant policies and legislation at an early stage as part of a formal decision-shaping process.

Agriculture and fisheries are not covered by the EEA. Not being bound by the Common Fisheries Policy is perceived as very important by Norway and Iceland, and a major reason not to join the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy would mean giving away fishing quotas in their waters.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market. After the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004, there was a tenfold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years). Non-EU countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.

The EEA countries that are not part of the EU can take part in some EU programmes such as Trans-European Networks and European Regional Development Fund, but will have to contribute with funds that the EU normally contributes.

Norway probably agree to this as it does generally make life easier (especially fishing) for trade, import, export etc.

But obviously dont want to mess around with the red tape and intricacies of the full EU membership. And who would with a Sovereign wealth fund the size of their's.

 

[spasm]

global population explosion. unchecked capitalism. globalisation.
it's the end of the world as we know it.

 

[milo]

One that needs a non-member to stop it falling apart?

Why should they bother if it is self inflicted? There is no incentive for them giving us a better deal than we had, we do not hold the trump cards and our position is getting weaker by the day. It will come to the point where we need some kind of deal, pragmatism will win out and I am sure that the deal will be presented as a victory by all sides but I do not see that being on better terms that we had and there could be a lot of damage done to our economy by the time we get to that point.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

52% of the UK are not xenophobic
Boris played a blinder.
When he backtracks on freedom of movement, who is going protest against him? The minority of xenophobics? They'll just be squashed down as Proles again. And they are hardly going to get any support from the Remain voters. People will realise it's just a power grab and vote him out after 3 years, but the options at that point will be a Tory majority or long term coalition's with Tory majorities.
And Boris still gets to play PM for a while.

No, they are not. I did not mean to imply that, so apologies if I offended anyone in that respect.
However there is no doubt that concerns over immigration featured highly for some people and if the outcome is continued freedom of movement in one form or another, it will simply give Farage continued opportunities to spout his divisive beliefs. EDIT : I mean it will give UKIP a perception of validity as they can point directly to this topic.

On another note : I have a question about Scotland. All hypothetical as I cannot see it happening but out of curiosity : In a world where there is another referendum on Scottish Independence, and this time the vote is in favour of leaving the UK, there seems to be an assumption by the SNP that this means Scotland can stay in the EU. However if Scotland left the UK, and became an independent nation, surely they would then have to apply for EU membership and meet all the different criteria (35 areas of conformity that are required or something similar?) as would any other country wishing to join?

 

[Baleforce]

No, they are not. I did not mean to imply that, so apologies if I offended anyone in that respect.
However there is no doubt that concerns over immigration featured highly for some people and if the outcome is continued freedom of movement in one form or another, it will simply give Farage continued opportunities to spout his divisive beliefs.

On another note : I have a question about Scotland. All hypothetical as I cannot see it happening but out of curiosity : In a world where there is another referendum on Scottish Independence, and this time the vote is in favour of leaving the UK, there seems to be an assumption by the SNP that this means Scotland can stay in the EU. However if Scotland left the UK, and became an independent nation, surely they would then have to apply for EU membership and meet all the different criteria (35 areas of conformity that are required or something similar?) as would any other country wishing to join?

if it was in the EU's interest i'm sure Scotland would be fast tracked in