Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/19 16:27:53
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
OK, so this doesn’t cover everything. The fact that it doesn’t cover the service industry, where the majority are employed, is something to note – but all them claims about being unable to export our goods to Europe were clearly lies.
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/04/19 16:36:48
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/19 16:40:26
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/19 17:15:09
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Unfortunately, we'd also be signing up to being the British province of the United Empire of Europe.
Economics be damned, it can be argued one way or the other depending on what branch of economics you follow. Economics and trade come and go. Sometimes the country is poorer, sometimes it is richer. The market adjusts. Sometimes you are in boom, sometimes you are in bust.
It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/19 17:15:47
2016/04/19 17:48:07
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
We got an insight to the sort of trade deal the leave campaign would like to secure for Britain outside the EU this morning when Michael Gove said: "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
He went on to say: "By being part of that free trade zone we would have full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."
This may be Michael Gove's hope, but it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to deliver in reality.
Assume "the European market" means the countries of the European continent. As Mr Gove says, excluding Russia and Belarus they are all part of a "free trade area" of sorts.
However, that is not one homogenous block but a mixture of agreements with varying conditions.
At its heart is the 'single market' of 28 member states of the EU.
Then there is the European Economic Area, a deal between Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the European Union.
Switzerland has its own bi-lateral agreement with the EU because its people rejected membership of the EEA in a referendum.
Turkey is part of a customs union. Other European states included in Mr Gove's definition, like Ukraine, also have bi-lateral deals with the EU.
All have required concessions from their members in order to do a deal.
The EEA deal with the EU came in on January 1st 1994 and effectively expands the single market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - we could call this "full access".
But in return they accepted EU regulations and its so-called four freedoms - the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Switzerland's agreement also requires the free movement of people but has less access for the services industry, a vital part of the UK's economy.
To achieve his goal of "full access" but no "EU regulation" from Iceland to the Russian border Mr Gove would have to come to a deal with the EU, the EEA and a number of European countries outside the EU, notably Switzerland.
Stephen Booth, co-director of think tank Open Europe, said: "The term free trade is a misnomer. What we're really talking about is preferential trade. It's about: 'You can have access to our market in return for access to yours'
"If you want preferential access the only way to do that is through a negotiation and a negotiation is a two-way street. You're not going to get something for nothing."
We can assume a deal for "full access" to the EU market will be impossible without concessions on either EU regulation or the free movement of people, or both.
The German and French governments have made it clear being in the single market means free movement of people, for example.
We could have freedom from EU regulation under World Trade Organisation rules but we can expect EU tariffs on our goods - not free access.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume the EU and other European countries would want to do trade deals with the UK but there is no reason to believe the UK can expect special treatment.
Reality check verdict: Full access with no regulation may be Mr Gove's hope but it looks impossible to deliver in practice.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/04/20 07:21:11
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
Apologies - I should have been clearer, I meant being able to trade without the need to pay fees.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
Apparently, and I only heard of this yesterday from the BBC, but from looking around the internet it does appear to be true. There is already a free trade agreement in place for Europe, so we don't need to negotiate for this, we already have it. To highlight the important bit "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
Now as I said, this only covers good, if we want to trade services then yes this will need to be negotiated. I'd add there is no certainty that this negotiation would require us to accept ALL EU regulations, look at some other big economies out there and they have trade deals with Europe that do not require them to accept all EU laws*, but for goods we don't even need to negotiate this as it's already in place.
* South Korea - the 6th largest economy in the world - has a free trade agreement with the EU that does not require them to pay into the EU purse, nor accept all their rules and regulations. As the 5th largest economy it's more likely we'd get a deal similar to this than to that used by Norway or Switzerland.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/20 07:22:24
2016/04/20 07:41:24
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
Apologies - I should have been clearer, I meant being able to trade without the need to pay fees.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
Apparently, and I only heard of this yesterday from the BBC, but from looking around the internet it does appear to be true. There is already a free trade agreement in place for Europe, so we don't need to negotiate for this, we already have it. To highlight the important bit "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
Now as I said, this only covers good, if we want to trade services then yes this will need to be negotiated. I'd add there is no certainty that this negotiation would require us to accept ALL EU regulations, look at some other big economies out there and they have trade deals with Europe that do not require them to accept all EU laws*, but for goods we don't even need to negotiate this as it's already in place.
* South Korea - the 6th largest economy in the world - has a free trade agreement with the EU that does not require them to pay into the EU purse, nor accept all their rules and regulations. As the 5th largest economy it's more likely we'd get a deal similar to this than to that used by Norway or Switzerland.
And a free trade agreement with the United States (without the EU) isn't out of the question either. We have free trade agreements with Canada and Australia. It shouldn't be difficult to put together one that would benefit the United Kingdom.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/04/20 08:52:53
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 09:06:30
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
We already have NATO, so I don't see the need for this.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 10:39:26
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Of course theres a need.. you cant be a country without your own army/navy. The eu laws already override any of a members when required, the five president report shows there going for tax/finances.
they have a flag
an anthem a president and parliment
theres not much left before members become "regions" and the equivitant of local councils. A saying from my childhood springs to mind "slowly slowly catchy monkey" this is what is happening slowly but a piece at a time.
2016/04/20 10:57:52
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
So, will there be a referendum in the end? To me, an outsider, it sounds like endless (and pointless) debates trying to prevent the whole thing from happening at all. When do you finally vote? Or is it like the US Primary, going on for months and months until everyone will get sick of it?
2016/04/20 11:05:25
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Ketara wrote:It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
Linky! The Five Presidents Report is my main level of argument for Brexit. It's quite an eye opener and I don't want us, as a sovereign nation, to be going down that road. Teathered to an outdated way of doing things, hedged in, controlled, stamped and approved. The next pile of treaty changes that will rumble in will probably be aimed at building a full fiscal union. Also, as you quite rightly point out, economies come and go, money is made and lost, but we'll be fine. Leaving will not suddenly end things, it'll be more like turning the ship.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
I vary between head shaking at stories such as this, furious at some of the stupid scare stories, exasperated by random oikophobic outbursts of stupidity (you can spot them - they usually blurt out things like: "but our government will turn into Big Brother/they didn't win the election/damn Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Monster Raving Looney Party/etc and only the EU can save us!" Wonderful, lets hand off more power to a group of politicians that are harder to hold to account as well as a group of unelected bureaucrats), more anger at American meddling (feths sake, I'd like to see the reaction that any USian would have if their nation was attempting to sign up to an equivalent - there'd be a fething uproar), amusement (if we Leave, the UK will sink into the atlantic, just like atlantis!) and it makes me more determined. I'll probably put my pencil right through the ballot paper as I'll probably be pressing it too hard in anger, gritted teeth and all, trying to make a cross in the Leave box.
2016/04/20 11:24:27
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Did anyone else see 'Europe: Them and Us' last night (I think it was originally shown last week).
The history of bungling we had in dealing with Europe was astounding. I could remember most of it happening (post 80's) but to have the people in question recounting their PoV on it was as eye opening as it was maddening.
Neither side of politics was blameless; Thatcher's pushing through of a Treaty she hadn't read was up there with the Blair government giving away most of the family silver. Blair of course just smiled his way through it not seeing an issue.
It's on iplayer if anyone wants to annoy themselves tonight.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
2016/04/20 11:41:05
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Skullhammer wrote: Of course theres a need.. you cant be a country without your own army/navy. The eu laws already override any of a members when required, the five president report shows there going for tax/finances. they have a flag an anthem a president and parliment theres not much left before members become "regions" and the equivitant of local councils. A saying from my childhood springs to mind "slowly slowly catchy monkey" this is what is happening slowly but a piece at a time.
You can be a country without a military. Costa Rica manages it, as do some others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/20 11:41:58
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/20 12:03:20
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Ketara wrote:It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
Linky! The Five Presidents Report is my main level of argument for Brexit. It's quite an eye opener and I don't want us, as a sovereign nation, to be going down that road. Teathered to an outdated way of doing things, hedged in, controlled, stamped and approved. The next pile of treaty changes that will rumble in will probably be aimed at building a full fiscal union. Also, as you quite rightly point out, economies come and go, money is made and lost, but we'll be fine. Leaving will not suddenly end things, it'll be more like turning the ship.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
I vary between head shaking at stories such as this, furious at some of the stupid scare stories, exasperated by random oikophobic outbursts of stupidity (you can spot them - they usually blurt out things like: "but our government will turn into Big Brother/they didn't win the election/damn Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Monster Raving Looney Party/etc and only the EU can save us!" Wonderful, lets hand off more power to a group of politicians that are harder to hold to account as well as a group of unelected bureaucrats), more anger at American meddling (feths sake, I'd like to see the reaction that any USian would have if their nation was attempting to sign up to an equivalent - there'd be a fething uproar), amusement (if we Leave, the UK will sink into the atlantic, just like atlantis!) and it makes me more determined. I'll probably put my pencil right through the ballot paper as I'll probably be pressing it too hard in anger, gritted teeth and all, trying to make a cross in the Leave box.
I'm waiting for the "Nigel Farage ate my hamster" headlines any day now
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Did anyone else see 'Europe: Them and Us' last night (I think it was originally shown last week).
The history of bungling we had in dealing with Europe was astounding. I could remember most of it happening (post 80's) but to have the people in question recounting their PoV on it was as eye opening as it was maddening.
Neither side of politics was blameless; Thatcher's pushing through of a Treaty she hadn't read was up there with the Blair government giving away most of the family silver. Blair of course just smiled his way through it not seeing an issue.
It's on iplayer if anyone wants to annoy themselves tonight.
Politicians are incompetent? Hold the front page
On a serious note, I'm not surprised New Labour gave the country away, but the Tories are just as bad. They talk the talk in the House of Commons, but when they reach Brussels, they usually roll up the white flag, David Cameron being a prime example of this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/20 12:06:27
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 12:11:37
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: It's easy to talk the talk, when nobody really bothers with what you do in Brussels.
I've said it twice before on this thread, but it's worth saying a third time:
Ahead of his EU negotiations, David Cameron publicly declared that he was campaigning to stay IN, and that when he arrived in Brussels on the Thursday, he said he wanted it done by the Monday. In effect, he sabotaged his own bargaining position before the negotiations even started!
Without a shadow of a doubt, that has to be the worst negotiation position in human history. Horsegak from start to finish.
That example is evidence enough that Cameron is not fit to be Prime Minister. He is a lame duck, his days are numbered, and nothing of value will be lost when he leaves Number 10.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 12:36:18
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
I came across an interesting video featuring the former Greek finance minister that resigned in the Greek bail out crisis. He states some interesting opinions about the European left and right, Brussels and a revelation of the nature of the Greek bailout.
I found it fairly interesting anyway.
Personally, I find it sickening that Europe is being handed to a new bunch of megalomaniacs a mere 70 years after ww2.
Fears of nationalism be damned. I would rather see the EU split up with all its great nations intact than see them melted down into the draconian superstate the 5 fuhrers dreamt up.
Change from within cannot happen when we are already seeing them overruling EU nations to further their goals. SO the only logical answer is to leave.
All that said, I still don't see leave winning tho. Humanity's irrational nature to accept and defend the status quo is not to be underestimated. No matter the consequences.
2016/04/20 12:39:39
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Cameron never had any intention of re-negotiating Britain's relationship with the EU. He's a Europhile, he likes the EU just the way it is and if he had his way, Britain would integrate even further. His so called "negotiations" were nothing more than a fig leaf, a smoke screen to placate Euro-sceptic voters and limit the voters being leached away by UKIP.
If we do vote to stay, we'll be voting for further integration, not the status quo.
There is NO status quo.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/20 12:41:39
2016/04/20 12:45:23
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Cameron never had any intention of re-negotiating Britain's relationship with the EU. He's a Europhile, he likes the EU just the way it is and if he had his way, Britain would integrate even further. His so called "negotiations" were nothing more than a fig leaf, a smoke screen to placate Euro-sceptic voters and limit the voters being leached away by UKIP.
If we do vote to stay, we'll be voting for further integration, not the status quo.
There is NO status quo.
True words. Whatever way the vote goes - Europe will have to change.
If Britain leaves, the shock will either topple the EU or allow the reformers to change it for the better.
If Britain stays, it's the green light for a United States of Europe.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 12:47:30
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
2016/04/20 12:54:19
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Dropbear Victim wrote: I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
As an Australian, you should be aware that your nation will be receiving a lot of criticism during this EU referendum. Why? Because the OUT campaign is using Australia as an example of what Britain could be outside the EU.
Predictably, the IN camp are portraying your good nation as a bunch of toothless simpletons who know nothing
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 13:26:13
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
Dropbear Victim wrote: I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
As an Australian, you should be aware that your nation will be receiving a lot of criticism during this EU referendum. Why? Because the OUT campaign is using Australia as an example of what Britain could be outside the EU.
Predictably, the IN camp are portraying your good nation as a bunch of toothless simpletons who know nothing
Oh really?
We really need to complete a long overdue prisoner exchange. For the colonists we received, you can have some koala broods. They'll naturalise to the UKs environment and the EU will get a nasty shock if it ever invades. A Koala makes no distinction between invading forces and tourists - their natural food source.
2016/04/20 13:52:31
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
In the end, i think the problem is one of identity and loyalty.
Do you feel you belong to the club or not? Are you loyal to the club or not? All this democratic deficit talk often boils down to "someone is deciding over my head", and by that people often do not mean "someone who was not legitimized democratically" (which is in big parts (although not completely) untrue, since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU) but more plainly "someone I do not trust/identify with".
Counter-question:
Why should any Scotsman accept what David Cameron and his party majority decide in London? Surely, non of the SNP-followers voted for him! (Well, yes, I know, but I hope you get the meaning).
Why?
Because the (slight) majority of Scots believe sufficiently, that they belong to the UK (for whichever reason), together with the Welsh, the English, the Islanders and the Northern Irish. And because they identify, and because they nurture the belief that their interests are respected, they accept to be overruled, almost constantly, and hope that the system can be changed from within.
Or at least, that leaving the UK would be worse.
So in the end it comes down to feely-feely, indeed. Do you like to be European and suffer the downsides or do you prefer to be British only and suffer the downsides?
Since we do not know what is worse, until you tried, maybe it is time you did.
- Just as the Scots should have tried.
And if you suffer badly then maybe you will come back, maybe even with a clearer idea of what the EU should or should not be, and maybe that will change the EU for better.
Right?
Right!??
Ok, who am I kidding?
Currently playing: Infinity, SW Legion
2016/04/20 14:32:41
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
European Commission?
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
2016/04/20 14:38:35
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
European Commission?
Well, what does the comission do in terms of decisions on changes or new competencies?
Currently playing: Infinity, SW Legion
2016/04/20 14:39:07
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
An interesting insight from William Hague in the Telegraph. Having been accused of euro-sceptism in the past, he offers an insight into the machinery of govt in the EU.
Perhaps not what you might expect....
First, I would note that British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues.
Obama is well within his rights to say that America's best interests are served by the UK in the EU. It would be a dereliction of duty for a American president not to say it. However, there's a fine line between saying this, and then visiting that country ahead of a crucial vote in a referendum.
Could you imagine a British Prime Minister in the USA this November telling American voters who to vote for? No, neither could I. Obama has crossed a line.
And since the US is our one indispensable ally, our biggest single trading partner and the ultimate guarantor of our security, its interests matter to everyone in Britain whether we like it or not.
A few months ago the Americans were saying that the French were their oldest ally.
As for the USA being the ultimate guarantor of our security...what a load of horsegak. You're embarrassing yourself now, Mr Hague.
This is partly because the UK plays a crucial role in ensuring the EU generally supports the objectives of the US and that there is usually transatlantic unity of action. When America needed strong sanctions to bring Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, Britain helped to make sure the whole EU adopted and implemented those sanctions. And without Britain to push for sanctions on Putin’s Russia when Crimea was invaded and annexed, the response of the EU would have been tremulously weak.
De Gaulle has been proven right - Britain is a Trojan horse for the USA. As for the Crimea, did I miss the bit where Russia annexed it or was it my imagination? As for Iran, I'm pretty sure non European nations were also involved.
In 2012, many EU states, led by France, made a determined push to set up an EU military headquarters. For the obvious reason that this would duplicate and potentially undermine Nato and in my capacity as the then foreign secretary, I strongly opposed it. I sat through the 12-hour meeting explaining that no British government would ever agree to it and then I vetoed it. Without the UK, it would have got through, and hands would have been wrung in Washington over the expensive and divisive results.
75% of spending in NATO is from the USA - this won't last for ever. I'm opposed to the creation of an EU military, but sooner or later, European nations are going to have to crank up defence spending, because America won't foot the bill forever.
None of this is to suggest that Britain is a permanent agent of the US, constantly subverting European ideas
Um, you've just spent most of the article saying otherwise!
A further reason why the President should feel free to speak out is that the last thing America, or the West in general, needs over the next few years is a self-inflicted bout of introversion and instability
Agreed. The more people feel cut of from the democratic process, the more likely we'll see mass unrest and riots on the streets of Europe. A united states of Europe which sees ordinary people feeling detached from the elites, will only help to create instability.
but their biggest concern would be the years of effort diverted by their main allies into a long and very painful attempt to negotiate a new relationship.
Never underestimate the effect of pragmatism and realpolitik to make things happen quickly. You would think a former foreign secretary would know this.
The message coming back from American embassies across Europe will be sobering: don’t expect Britain to strike any easy deal any time soon with the EU if it votes to leave. Anyone who has seen government from the inside knows how much energy would be drained from dealing with all the other economic and security challenges in London, Paris and Berlin.
Translation: politicians like myself will now have to work for a living instead of outsourcing it to the EU.
Whatever we think about Europe, the fact that a vote to leave would be such bad news for our closest allies should be a material factor in deciding how to vote.
To paraphrase a well known American: Britain has no allies, only interests.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/20 15:30:31
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
European Commission?
Well, what does the comission do in terms of decisions on changes or new competencies?
The Commission does most of it, neither the Parliament or Council have the power of legislative initiative (in general, there's a bit more to it than that).
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
2016/04/20 19:31:47
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd! Should Britain stay or go?
The Commission does most of it, neither the Parliament or Council have the power of legislative initiative (in general, there's a bit more to it than that).
Yes, so they have no decision power at all. They have the right of proposals - but those are most often pre-negotiated with or even directly coming from high functionaries of the nation states, i.e. most governements knows about them.
A lot of them are issued after a European council (the big chatting round of the EU heads of state you regularly see on TV). Coincidence? Every now and again, the commission puts out unsolicited proposals, and these go a long way before they are either dumped or decided upon by..? Yes, by your (and mine) MEP - depending on field of matter, in conjunction with, without or only by the council of ministers (that is, the national ministers).
And in cases where the treaties are changed (such as a widening of competencies), this EU law needs then to be ratified by each member state, usually by national parliamentary vote. Only if all states ratify, it will come into effect.
Member states may hold referenda, if they so want, as the Dutch just did for the association treaty with the Ukraine.
(Which was super effective, btw, in so far as it showed that roughly 10% of Dutch people do not want Ukraine to become a part of Europe, 10 % wanted to show the finger to their government, 10% showed their support for Ukraine, and 67% of the Dutch voters did not give a damn at all and stayed home ).
-------
Now, if you are talking about things that your heads of states from Maggie Thatcher to David Cameron have given over to the EC and later EU, that is whole other issue. And yes, the commission agencies have shown again and again that they are just as unsuitable to tangle important issues then your national ministries. (health issues, for example, search for the arte documentation on the EFSA, for example the statements on Aspartam ("Of course we had to deny the validity of the study, otherwise we would have been forced to withdraw it from the market immediately! Do you know, what the economic repercussions would have been?").
And yes, I agree that subsidiarity is being undermined on a regular base because the heads of state prefer it that way. But again, that is a problem of the national governments first, and a problem of overzealous European institutions second. As long as we cannot control our own governments directly, I am happy to have at least a second parliamentary body that tries to do that. If you are not, your choice.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/20 19:43:27
