Do you think there is really any chance for a UK EU exit?

ewan whose army

There seems to be panic about a possible UK EU exit.

The only parties who want an exit are UKIP, DUP, BNP, Socialist Coalition and some Tories.

OK Cameron has promised a referendum but its looking like a Labour next government so it is unlikely it will happen, as of the parties where it is officially policies only one has MPs (DUP) and they have only 8, plus they are a NI party! The rest of the UK doesn't really like them (Paisley)

So its looking unlikely for an EU exit anytime soon.

hfallada

I think British people don't understand the EU actually is. It isn't an institution that receives billions of pound in tax payers money. But gives them access to a large wealthy market without barriers to trade. Also visa less travel and the right to work without permits.

Without the eu they could possibly lose investment and the importance of the city. But I think Ireland could benefit from more investment if they leave. I imagine Ireland could organise a trade agreement with British pretty easily if needed

ewan whose army

hfallada wrote: »

I think British people don't understand the EU actually is. It isn't an institution that receives billions of pound in tax payers money. But gives them access to a large wealthy market without barriers to trade. Also visa less travel and the right to work without permits.

Without the eu they could possibly lose investment and the importance of the city. But I think Ireland could benefit from more investment if they leave. I imagine Ireland could organise a trade agreement with British pretty easily if needed

True. The whole EU debate is just insane in the UK. The "It costs xxxx Million to remain in" argument that is used by the likes of UKIP doesn't count trade returns.

Nobody knows the difference between the Council of Europe and the EU, they think the Human Rights Court is the EU, okay they use the same flag (Maybe change that?) but the stuff about giving prisoners votes and the like is nothing to do with the EU.

I wonder if the EU would cope with a country exiting, the UK is a net contributor it will affect their budgets plus it may have secondary affects in triggering euroskeptic movements in other places.

Scofflaw

I'd say that the current balance of probabilities is about a one-third chance of leaving if it actually comes to a vote. That will drop slightly if there are concessions on repatriation of powers. The chance is real, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

guillespe

If they allow a referendum,which i highly doubt,there will be a lot of pro-eu propoganda surrounding it..

It will tip the balance in favour of staying in the EU,in politics the masses must be controlled by any means nessecary..

oscarBravo

guillespe wrote: »

If they allow a referendum,which i highly doubt,there will be a lot of pro-eu propoganda surrounding it..

And no anti-EU propaganda?

guillespe

oscarBravo wrote: »

And no anti-EU propaganda?

They usually give more airtime to pro eu propoganda most tv news stations are government mouthpieces..

oscarBravo

guillespe wrote: »

They usually give more airtime to pro eu propoganda...

[citation needed]

ewan whose army

oscarBravo wrote: »

And no anti-EU propaganda?

We get a lot of anti eu propaganda!

Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sky News

micosoft

It will be interesting when those that have vested interests in maintain the European Union wake up and start seriously campaigning - notably British Business who are really concerned at the propect of a British Exit which business has repeatedly stated will damage UK employement.

I suspect the there will be a pullback from the presipice.... but there may be substantial damage done to the British Euro relationship.

I find it odd that simultaneously there is a potential breakup of the United Kingdom with Scotlands exit as well as a English exit from the EU. Who could benefit from all of this instablity in what was believed to be a post nationalist era.....

Alun

Also what about the many thousands of UK citizens working in other EU countries courtesy of the free movement of labour within the EU? What happens to them?

fl4pj4ck

not a chance

where's the poll?

ewan whose army

fl4pj4ck wrote: »

not a chance

where's the poll?

In 2017 assuming the tories win which is a huge assumption

Since the UK is a net contributor I can see the EU putting up a fight as well

gallag

The people shouting loudest about a British exit are non-Brits, That makes sense being a net contributer to the E.U (of which there are few) and the argument used by these fear mongers is that the rest of the E.U will try to punish the UK with artificial and punitive restrictions and taxes while forgetting the UK on average buys more goods from the E.U than it sells to it so it would be a cutting of nose to spite face situation.

Why are the pro E.U guys so determined and happy to see bully boy tactics being used to keep a country that would be better off out in?

Is the best argument to force the UK to remain in going to be about artificially imposed taxes?

Why the fear of independent countries and free trade agreements?

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

...bully boy tactics...

I was going to type a considered reply to your post, but I have a mental filter that means I can't take any post seriously if it contains this phrase.

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was going to type a considered reply to your post, but I have a mental filter that means I can't take any post seriously if it contains this phrase.

What would you call it? The entire argument from the pro E.U crowd is "if you leave we will try to cripple you with punitive taxes and restrictions" mabey I am missing something but is that not a bullying tactic?

ewan whose army

Is just seems that every argument is very negative!!

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

What would you call it? The entire argument from the pro E.U crowd is "if you leave we will try to cripple you with punitive taxes and restrictions" mabey I am missing something but is that not a bullying tactic?

How about we dial the rhetoric back a notch? First, when you say "pro EU crowd" are you talking about posters here? Because, as far as I know, nobody posting here is in a position to influence EU taxes or restrictions.

Or maybe you meant that the EU itself has threatened to "cripple" the UK with "punitive taxes and restrictions" - because I haven't seen any statements from any of the EU bodies to that effect.

Maybe you're just over-reacting to the idea that the UK post-exit wouldn't get to dictate the terms of a free-trade agreement with no strings attached. If so, and if that's your idea of "bullying", well...

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

What would you call it? The entire argument from the pro E.U crowd is "if you leave we will try to cripple you with punitive taxes and restrictions" mabey I am missing something but is that not a bullying tactic?

If you leave your local Golf Club you don't get to demand that you continue to play for free.

At the heart of your complaint seems to be that one side (the UK) should unilaterally get every concession they want, but the views of the other 26 members can just be disregarded. Otherwise it's "bullying".

If you are to take your argument at face value you can just as easily accuse the UK of bullying Europe by demanding all the benefits but none of the costs of EU membership. Do you really think every other EU state will stand idly by? It cuts BOTH ways.

dlouth15

gallag wrote: »

What would you call it? The entire argument from the pro E.U crowd is "if you leave we will try to cripple you with punitive taxes and restrictions" mabey I am missing something but is that not a bullying tactic?

A lot of this is likely to be bluster on their part. If you remember a while back, Obama officials warned that the currently negotiated US-EU trade deal was unlikely to go ahead without the UK as an integral part on the EU side (earlier thread on boards here). What this indicates is that the UK is seen as an integral part of the EU economy and that therefore, should the UK opt to leave, a good trading relationship is likely.

So yes there's going to be a lot of bluster before an exit. But afterwards pragmatism will prevail.

micosoft

dlouth15 wrote: »

A lot of this is likely to be bluster on their part. If you remember a while back, Obama officials warned that the currently negotiated US-EU trade deal was unlikely to go ahead without the UK as an integral part on the EU side (earlier thread on boards here). What this indicates is that the UK is seen as an integral part of the EU economy and that therefore, should the UK opt to leave, a good trading relationship is likely.

So yes there's going to be a lot of bluster before an exit. But afterwards pragmatism will prevail.

That's an interesting interpretation when the US has explicitly stated that the UK should remain within the EU. One thing is for sure - any agreement with the EU will not automatically apply to the UK.
Aside from that there will be a good trading relationship with the UK just as there is with Norway and Switzerland. EFTA will get an additional member and the EU one less.

Crying "Bully" because you don't want to accept that there are consequences to leaving the EU is not acceptable. You leave the club, all obligations and benefits cease with immediate effect. Happens at the local Golf Club, happens to a club of nations. To think that you could cease your obligations while retaining the benefits is beyond belief.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

A lot of this is likely to be bluster on their part. If you remember a while back, Obama officials warned that the currently negotiated US-EU trade deal was unlikely to go ahead without the UK as an integral part on the EU side (earlier thread on boards here). What this indicates is that the UK is seen as an integral part of the EU economy and that therefore, should the UK opt to leave, a good trading relationship is likely.

So yes there's going to be a lot of bluster before an exit. But afterwards pragmatism will prevail.

That is, as micosoft says, an interesting interpretation of:

The Obama administration has warned British officials that if the UK leaves Europe it will exclude itself from a US-EU trade and investment partnership potentially worth hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that it was very unlikely that Washington would make a separate deal with Britain.

Yes, a UK exit would make the deal a harder sell to Congress:

The threat by Cameron's ministers to back a UK exit in a referendum on the EU raised doubts in Washington on whether Britain would still be part of the deal once it had been negotiated. More immediately, Obama administration officials were concerned that the uncertainty over Britain's future would further complicate what is already a hard sell in Congress, threatening a central pledge in the president's State of the Union address in February.

but the statement that a separate UK deal would be unlikely is entirely explicit:

With formal negotiations expected to start within weeks, the state department already has hundreds of staff working on the partnership. Sources at US-UK meetings in London last week said American officials made it clear that it would take a monumental effort to get TTIP through a suspicious Congress and that "there would very little appetite" in Washington to do it all again with the UK if Britain walked out of Europe.

and it's perhaps also worth noting that "a harder sell in Congress" is not "wouldn't go ahead" or the US administration saying it wouldn't try to go ahead - clearly it would try to get a US-EU trade deal through Congress even in the event of a UK exit.

I don't really see how one can go from what the US has said to "oh, we'd totally get our own deal if we left the EU", because they're diametrically opposite statements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

micosoft wrote: »

That's an interesting interpretation when the US has explicitly stated that the UK should remain within the EU. One thing is for sure - any agreement with the EU will not automatically apply to the UK.

Well let's look at what they actually said. What they said was that should UK leave, not only will the UK not benefit (which of doesn't really need to be said - Britain would not be part of such a deal anyway being outside of EU), but that the entire deal would not go ahead, the implication being that France, Germany, Italy and the other member states who need the deal would also lose out if the EU fails to be sufficiently attractive to the UK that they seek to leave.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well let's look at what they actually said. What they said was that should UK leave, not only will the UK not benefit (which of doesn't really need to be said - Britain would not be part of such a deal anyway being outside of EU), but that the entire deal would not go ahead, the implication being that France, Germany, Italy and the other member states who need the deal would also lose out if the EU fails to be sufficiently attractive to the UK that they seek to leave.

No, they didn't say that the deal wouldn't go ahead, they said it would be a "harder sell" in Congress. It's there in black and white.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they didn't say that the deal wouldn't go ahead, they said it would be a "harder sell" in Congress. It's there in black and white.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, congress being the decision maker here, it is very unlikely, in the opinion of the Obama officials that the TTIP would succeed if Britain were to leave.

If Britain leaves then of course Britain would not benefit from any deal. This is fairly obvious and doesn't really need stating. This would happen anyway. But what the Obama officials are saying is that the US is then unlikely to conclude the deal with the rest of the EU - Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, etc. would also fail to benefit from the deal.

Although the Guardian paints this as a warning aimed at the UK, it makes more sense to interpret it as a warning towards the EU in general. Keep the UK happy because if they leave, the trade deal is off.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Yes, congress being the decision maker here, it is very unlikely, in the opinion of the Obama officials that the TTIP would succeed if Britain were to leave.

If Britain leaves then of course Britain would not benefit from any deal. This is fairly obvious and doesn't really need stating. This would happen anyway. But what the Obama officials are saying is that the US is then unlikely to conclude the deal with the rest of the EU - Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, etc. would also fail to benefit from the deal.

Although the Guardian paints this as a warning aimed at the UK, it makes more sense to interpret it as a warning towards the EU in general. Keep the UK happy because if they leave, the trade deal is off.

Oh, I'd certainly see it as a warning both ways, but the one thing it doesn't support is the idea that the UK could get a deal in the event of an exit. What the US statements say is that in the event of a UK exit the administration would still try to get a TTIP through Congress, but they would not have any appetite for trying even to broker a similar deal for the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, I'd certainly see it as a warning both ways, but the one thing it doesn't support is the idea that the UK could get a deal in the event of an exit. What the US statements say is that in the event of a UK exit the administration would still try to get a TTIP through Congress, but they would not have any appetite for trying even to broker a similar deal for the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The way I would interpret it by way of analogy is to imagine you are an employee of a large corporation which is engaged in an important deal with another corporation. You have let it be known that you are considering leaving and the other corporation has said that the deal is likely to be off should your departure occur.

Now the question is this: on whom is the pressure being placed?

It is clear to me that the pressure is not so much on you but rather on the corporation you are thinking of leaving. You, as a departing employee, were not going to benefit from the deal anyway so there is little additional pressure on you. The corporation, on the other hand, must now seek to placate you and try to get you to stay if they want to maximise their chances of a good deal in their favour.

Translating this to the European situation: the pressure is on the EU to try to keep the UK in the union. Thus they are likely to make concessions during negotiations on repatriation of powers that Cameron is planning if the Tories win the next election. Barosso is arguing that this is a ridiculous proposition but this I would argue is bluster. If the EU fails to make sufficient concessions and the UK decides to leave, then the next best thing will be a very good trading relationship with the UK similar to the Swiss. From purely a trade point of view this will be the next best thing to the US.

It is for this reason that I regard a lot of the rhetoric to the effect that Britain will be out in the cold with punitive trade conditions imposed as largely bluster.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

The way I would interpret it by way of analogy is to imagine you are an employee of a large corporation which is engaged in an important deal with another corporation. You have let it be known that you are considering leaving and the other corporation has said that the deal is likely to be off should your departure occur.

Now the question is this: on whom is the pressure being placed?

It is clear to me that the pressure is not so much on you but rather on the corporation you are thinking of leaving. You, as a departing employee, were not going to benefit from the deal anyway so there is little additional pressure on you. The corporation, on the other hand, must now seek to placate you and try to get you to stay if they want to maximise their chances of a good deal in their favour.

Translating this to the European situation: the pressure is on the EU to try to keep the UK in the union. Thus they are likely to make concessions during negotiations on repatriation of powers that Cameron is planning if the Tories win the next election. Barosso is arguing that this is a ridiculous proposition but this I would argue is bluster. If the EU fails to make sufficient concessions and the UK decides to leave, then the next best thing will be a very good trading relationship with the UK similar to the Swiss. From purely a trade point of view this will be the next best thing to the US.

It is for this reason that I regard a lot of the rhetoric to the effect that Britain will be out in the cold with punitive trade conditions imposed as largely bluster.

The analogy is inaccurate again. What the other company has said, by analogy, is that the deal will be harder to sell to the shareholders. They will still try to sell it to the shareholders, but are less certain of getting it passed - it's not a hugely material difference, though, since it already has to be passed by the shareholders (taking a 'monumental effort') even if you stay with the company. You're a plus in what is already a very difficult deal, not a deal-breaker.

That certainly does place pressure on the company to keep you on board, but if you can, you can't. On the other hand, what has also been stated by the other company is that there is "very little appetite" for cutting a similar deal with you and your startup if you leave.

I think you're engaged in very strongly wishful thinking here.

If the EU fails to make sufficient concessions and the UK decides to leave, then the next best thing will be a very good trading relationship with the UK similar to the Swiss.

You mean the UK would be in the EEA or EFTA? I can't help but see that as something of a smokescreen, and I wouldn't be sure whether what was gained in terms of repatriated powers would be worth the loss of influence over those powers not repatriated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

The analogy is inaccurate again. What the other company has said, by analogy, is that the deal will be harder to sell to the shareholders. They will still try to sell it to the shareholders, but are less certain of getting it passed - it's not a hugely material difference, though, since it already has to be passed by the shareholders (taking a 'monumental effort') even if you stay with the company. You're a plus in what is already a very difficult deal, not a deal-breaker.

Well I think in the case of the US-EU deal, the impression was that the UK's presence in the EU might well be the deal-breaker. Quote: "If the UK separates from the EU, I think will go a long way to derail the TTIP project entirely".

That certainly does place pressure on the company to keep you on board, but if you can, you can't. On the other hand, what has also been stated by the other company is that there is "very little appetite" for cutting a similar deal with you and your startup if you leave.

But remember that you weren't necessarily assuming that when you started considering leaving. As far as you were concerned you were going out on your own, and at that point you did not know that your departure would be a potential deal-breaker for the company you worked for. The fact that after your departure, this deal might not go ahead is no longer your concern but that of the corporation you once worked for.

I think you're engaged in very strongly wishful thinking here.

Well you're entitled to that opinion. I beg to differ.

You mean the UK would be in the EEA or EFTA? I can't help but see that as something of a smokescreen, and I wouldn't be sure whether what was gained in terms of repatriated powers would be worth the loss of influence over those powers not repatriated.

Yes, I think that given what has been said, membership of the EFTA, for example, with something approximating the Swiss deal is more likely than might have might have been imagined prior to the US officials remarks.

My own view is that we can expect bluster about the UK seeking to repatriate powers leading up to the negotiations themselves. This is to be expected but I would not pay a huge amount of attention to it. Reality will set in during the actual negotiations. The US officials remarks will work in the UK's favour in these negotiations significant powers will be repatriated, sufficient that the UK will opt to stay in the union. I think this will work out very well for both the UK as well as the EU and the US deal will go ahead. It will be a win-win situation.

View

A lot of the recent posts seem to start with the assumption that the EU is desperate to do a deal with the US.

Given that the EU has survived perfectly fine without a deal with the US up until now that assumption is plainly erroneous.

Sure, the EU member states will probably support such a deal if it is in their individual and collective interests but that doesn't mean they MUST do a deal.

Indeed, it should be remembered that of the two major parties involved in the deal, the EU - not the US - is the larger party and a successful deal is, if anything, of more interest of the US than the EU.

If a UK departure from the EU hindered such a deal, I am sure that the (remaining) EU member states might have regrets but they will respect the US's right not to proceed with the deal.

The one thing they will not respect or accept is an ultimatum (either real or perceived) from the US that the EU must include the UK as a pre-condition for such a deal.

The EU was set up by its member states to acheive specified goals for themselves - they aren't going to turn into a glorified social club to appease either the US congress or the UK's Eurosceptics.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

A lot of the recent posts seem to start with the assumption that the EU is desperate to do a deal with the US.

I don't think either side is absolutely desperate for for a deal ether. I think each side regards it as advantageous to their economies.

Given that the EU has survived perfectly fine without a deal with the US up until now that assumption is plainly erroneous.

Debatable. See remark below on the EU economy.

Sure, the EU member states will probably support such a deal if it is in their individual and collective interests but that doesn't mean they MUST do a deal.

Indeed, it should be remembered that of the two major parties involved in the deal, the EU - not the US - is the larger party and a successful deal is, if anything, of more interest of the US than the EU.

In GDP terms, only very marginally larger - about 2% and this could be wiped out fairly quickly by continued growth in the US economy and continued sluggishness in the EU one. Another thing to remember is that the US has much lower unemployment at 7.5% compared to 10.9 for the EU (12% for the Eurozone).

If a UK departure from the EU hindered such a deal, I am sure that the (remaining) EU member states might have regrets but they will respect the US's right not to proceed with the deal.

LOL. They can hardly not respect the other parties right to walk away; they would have no choice.

The one thing they will not respect or accept is an ultimatum (either real or perceived) from the US that the EU must include the UK as a pre-condition for such a deal.

Well, I don't think it will ever be presented to them as an ultimatum. Look at the comments in that article. Although I believe that it was in reality the EU that was being tacitly warned against a UK exit, it was phrased ambiguously in such a way that the Guardian could interpret it as a warning towards the UK. In addition, it was expressed along the lines of "We want the deal to go ahead but them congressmen might not like the UK leaving". Good cop/bad cop kind of thing.

The EU was set up by its member states to acheive specified goals for themselves - they aren't going to turn into a glorified social club to appease either the US congress or the UK's Eurosceptics.

I think that is a rather negative way of viewing the sorts of changes that might happen after either a successful renegotiation of powers by the UK or an exit. Either of those events might lead to a more flexible Europe towards the differing requirements of individual states and that can only be a good thing. Less of a one-size-fits-all EU.

TheCruiser

The primary reason the US wants to keep the UK in is because on almost every issue, the UK is the most "like-minded" member state. While it would be an overstatement to say that the UK is an American trojan horse, the Americans know they have a pretty direct line into and out of high level discussions through their friendly British colleagues. An EU without the UK would result in a less desirable form of TTIP from the American perspective but the issue goes much broader than that, the US wants the British voice in all EU discussions.

None of that is to say that the UK doesn't have its own very strong interests for remaining within the EU for all the reasons outlined elsewhere.