Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

So you think that although there will still be a UK of some sort in the event of a brexit, the ordinary person is unlikely to be able to buy anything and will not be able to find a job and mass starvation?

There's no need to strawman the argument. The point is that average Joe is likely to see his purchasing power decrease and his job may be in danger. The welfare state and the public sector are funded from taxation. Any damage to the economy will have ramifications stretching far beyond GDP calculations.

BlitzKrieg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So? That's your answer?

"I don't object to you making that argument sir, but some people who are racists are also making that argument"

*eyes glaze over, votes Leave*

There are perfectly decent Brits who feel strongly about these issues of sovereignty, social values and migration, and are voting accordingly.

Honestly i think this is more the 'tory civil war' issue then anything because there are responses to this that one can give. But those are answers that the current government dont want to say publicly because even though its the answer on the issue it will lose them a lot of their base.

Its probably why they've been hammering at Labour to get involved because they want Labour to take on those issues. But Labour have been too slow and now the talking points that the tory's are comfortable with have become *fear mongering*

in short

Sovereignty - The notion of an EU attack on British Sovereignty is overblown, the powers of the commission have been greatly exagerated by the current and previous governments and the actual power national governments have to protect their national interests are in no danger from the EU.

For example the Commission may be the legislative of the EU but its power to legislate is actually limited, it requires that what it is legislating about is covered in the European Treaties (which is very limited to certain aspects of trade and the make up of the EU itself) to legislate in other areas outside of the treaties it actually needs full consensus from the European Council to do so. That means for the Commission to make laws about for example the recent Asylum laws, The UK along with every other EU state had to give them permission to and it has to be by CONSENSUS. So no being outvoted.

And the european council is the elected leaders of each member state.


Social values: Not sure which one this is? please elaborate


Migration: This is a fun one because the government have been trying to say it without saying it. You may have seen many of them repeat the *Brexit is not a silver bullet for migration issues* but wont go into it any further.

Well because at most if the UK was trying to preserve its current economic status there would be a decrease of overall immigration by about 20% from Brexit.

Thats being very positive. 20% less migration into the UK. If the UK was to use the same Australian point system on EU migration as it does on non-EU migration.



You can reach this by using the the recently released figures

48% of all EU migrants arrive here already hired by a firm in the UK

it's 60% of non-EU migrants and thats because the point system the UK uses favours hiring skilled workers or workers whom businesses in the UK have pushed they need from outside the UK (i.e the ones with lawyers who know how to traverse the paperwork right).


So even outside of the EU you can imagine that 48% is mostly going to stick pretty much the same. This number is made up of skilled workers hired for specfic duties and of members of a company moving from one branch to another (for example Lego in denmark actually has a lot of danish execs come over the UK to head production of Lego products here in the UK like their animated series and theme park etc expand to include banks, multinationals etc etc and you can easily see where that 48% comes from)

None of that will go away with Brexit. Its good for the economy, the british government will bend over backwards handing out points to keep that going so companies like Lego etc wont move over to ireland or another country. it might shift as those companies might hire from other countries outside the EU if they can cheaper skilled workers to fill some jobs (swap French animators for cheaper Korean animators for example)

And then you got I think it was 16% of all EU immigration is students. That will drop a small bit as some students who could afford british tuition but relied on working while studying to keep going might drop out but the prestigious OXBRIDGE will still attract a solid 10% of EU immigration on top of the 28% non-EU student immigration.

That leaves 35% that come over for *other* and looking for work. A few might still come through because they have legitimate skills, but thats where the majority of migration will be stopped by a points system.

Except you got to adjust for the Irish who will still be allowed in.

So add it up and you are are looking at 60-65% of EU migration still coming in after Brexit

which is 40% of eu migration cut and since EU migration is almost (but actually slightly less) half of total migration that would put the total cut in migration to 20%

20% of 350 000 (est) is 70,000 so immigration post brexit will still be 280,000. Well above the promises tens of thousands.

And thats with a healthy UK economy continuing at the same standard as it is right now.

If post brexit the UK economy takes a hit it might rise up a bit.

But with no fear mongering on losing jobs, just focused on the numbers from 2015 thats how much migration Brexit will cut.

But the tories will never want to say that.

Because

A) they'll be admitting they want high migration, even though thats obvious from the high non-eu migration numbers

it'll completely sink Camerons cut migration to the tens of thousands promise to ribbons

C) It'll make the tory friends who run those big businesses and multinationals out to be the bad guys which they dont want.


Hence they simply say...Brexit is not a silver bullet for migration. And they beg and beg and beg for labour to come in and take the brunt of that argument.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's no need to strawman the argument. The point is that average Joe is likely to see his purchasing power decrease and his job may be in danger. The welfare state and the public sector are funded from taxation. Any damage to the economy will have ramifications stretching far beyond GDP calculations.

Except that that was not what was being claimed.

"but if joe soap suddely can't afford to buy anything and/or can't find a job"

I think you will agree that there's a difference between the average joe seeing a reduction in purchasing power and "suddely can't afford to buy anything".

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

Except that that was not what was being claimed.

"but if joe soap suddely can't afford to buy anything and/or can't find a job"

I think you will agree that there's a difference between the average joe seeing a reduction in purchasing power and "suddely can't afford to buy anything".

Oh ffs, do you strawman much? If that's the best that you can do, your argument is utterly bereft of merit.

Slight overexaggeration on my part, but the point stands; the reality is that there will be a notable hit to the British economy. Anybody who tries to spin it otherwise is - to be frank - an absolute liar. Or an idiot. Take your pick.

Further; you'll find that there are much wider gaps in earning power between social groups in the UK than might be seen in Ireland, so any contraction in the economy will be more keenly felt.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

Oh ffs, do you strawman much? If that's the best that you can do, your argument is utterly bereft of merit.

Slight overexaggeration on my part, but the point stands; the reality is that there will be a notable hit to the British economy. Anybody who tries to spin it otherwise is - to be frank - an absolute liar. Or an idiot. Take your pick.

Well you''ve already spun it otherwise earlier in this thread so now you get to decide whether you are liar or an idiot.

But I'm willing to be charitable and let you away with your current position that there will be some economic cost to brexit. But even if this is the case, do you still maintain that absolutely nothing is achieved if there is a gain in sovereignty, albeit with some economic cost? Surely that depends on the value one places on sovereignty over economics. Everyone is going to be different on this.

BlitzKrieg

But I'm willing to be charitable and let you away with your current position that there will be some economic cost to brexit. But even if this is the case, do you still maintain that absolutely nothing is achieved if there is a gain in sovereignty, albeit with some economic cost? Surely that depends on the value one places on sovereignty over economics. Everyone is going to be different on this.

Personally I'd argue gaining sovereignty is only really worth it if there is a will behind it and in times of peace that will is a political one. My issue with Brexit is the same issue I had with the Irish European referendums in some ways, I dont think that will is genuinely there as these are the sort of issues that are not resolved with a referendum but instead with an election.

When the Lisbon referendum in particular failed the first time, my biggest issue with the response was the groups that pushed for the no vote all but dissolved from any sort of agency and in fact when there was a european election between the two referendums what was considered one of the biggest factors in the first lisbon victory, the Declan Ganley led Libertas movement got destroyed in the elections as did any other group involved with the no vote except for Sinn Fein. There was no will to build on that referendum result which essentially allowed the government use that lack of momentum to put it to a second referendum.


And that's kind of the issue with Brexit. If Leave wins, will UKIP remain as poltical force in Uk politics? Will they rise in national politics? Will the conservatives who have sided with leave take over the party and will we see the party take in line their policies more?

We are not getting those answers, and in fact there has been in some interviews some blatant question dodging on this issue where they've thrown it back on the government to resolve (especially around immigration) and claimed its not their place to make such calls.

But the government has no will for those policies so best case scenario you'll get from them is damage control, keep the status quo by ducktaping with national laws replicating a lot of what we already have. It'll be reclaimed sovereignty that will be used in the same way as it was when it was not claimed.

It's partly why when people point to Norway or Switzerland I somewhat laugh because to the governemmt they are taking back soveriegnty because you told them they had to and then they are repackaging it and giving it away in another form because its what they feel is best for the country and that is strangely what a lot of people want and expect.

Thats why these sort of things are not good for referendum. I would have rather brexit came about from UKIP winning the national elections over being 1 of a group pushing a government that doesnt want to leave over the edge and letting them take the fall.

Because then I'd know at least the will is there and whatever monstrosity waits on the other side its one the UK politically, socially and by majority are willing to step into it.

Course if UKIP won the national elections I'd also be looking to move back to Ireland most likely, but thats me personally.

BlitzKrieg

A lot of people attacking the remain campaign for fear mongering, but lets remember with this debate that its not one sided fear mongering.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Personally I'd argue gaining sovereignty is only really worth it if there is a will behind it and in times of peace that will is a political one. My issue with Brexit is the same issue I had with the Irish European referendums in some ways, I dont think that will is genuinely there as these are the sort of issues that are not resolved with a referendum but instead with an election.

When the Lisbon referendum in particular failed the first time, my biggest issue with the response was the groups that pushed for the no vote all but dissolved from any sort of agency and in fact when there was a european election between the two referendums what was considered one of the biggest factors in the first lisbon victory, the Declan Ganley led Libertas movement got destroyed in the elections as did any other group involved with the no vote except for Sinn Fein. There was no will to build on that referendum result which essentially allowed the government use that lack of momentum to put it to a second referendum.

And that's kind of the issue with Brexit. If Leave wins, will UKIP remain as poltical force in Uk politics? Will they rise in national politics? Will the conservatives who have sided with leave take over the party and will we see the party take in line their policies more?

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with either side. Like I said, in my view it comes down to the relative weighting you give to economics and national sovereignty. There's also the issue of how much sovereignty you would gain and how what the economic cost might be and these are legitimate concerns.

But let us say for the sake of argument that you were leaning towards the Leave side because you put a high value on national sovereignty. Why would you care that campaign groupings set up to achieve a particular aim continue once that aim is achieved? You might be perfectly happy, once the aim is achieved, that Labour and the Tories continue much as they have always done but now with greater legislative power when they are in office.
[/QUOTE]

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with either side. Like I said, in my view it comes down to the relative weighting you give to economics and national sovereignty. There's also the issue of how much sovereignty you would gain and how what the economic cost might be and these are legitimate concerns.

But let us say for the sake of argument that you were leaning towards the Leave side because you put a high value on national sovereignty. Why would you care that campaign groupings set up to achieve a particular aim continue once that aim is achieved? You might be perfectly happy, once the aim is achieved, that Labour and the Tories continue much as they have always done but now with greater legislative power when they are in office.

[/quote]

My point is they wouldn't.

Without the political will the tory or labour government will hand those legislative powers right back in another form.

Be it in a bilateral agreement ala switzerland or joining the EEA like Norway.

There is no point voting for a return of sovereign powers if the political will is to hand them back out.

That's why I stand by this sort of decision should have been the basis for an election and not a referendum because it's not just leaving. It's what the uk does after it leaves.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

My point is they wouldn't.

Without the political will the tory or labour government will hand those legislative powers right back in another form.

Be it in a bilateral agreement ala switzerland or joining the EEA like Norway.

There is no point voting for a return of sovereign powers if the political will is to hand them back out.

That's why I stand by this sort of decision should have been the basis for an election and not a referendum because it's not just leaving. It's what the uk does after it leaves.

Ok I understand your point. A move from the EU to the EEA would not result in total sovereignty but it would probably be a move in the direction of greater sovereignty and the option to leave the EEA would still be in place at a future date. If the UK joined the EEA I don't think they would rejoin the EU. Despite the limitations of the EEA, Norway and Iceland don't seem in any hurry to join the EU.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ok I understand your point. A move from the EU to the EEA would not result in total sovereignty but it would probably be a move in the direction of greater sovereignty and the option to leave the EEA would still be in place at a future date.

Actually thats a great question. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a system to process a country to leave the EU over a 2 year period. But does the EEA and EFTA actually have a process for a country to leave it formally like the EU?

It might actually be harder for the UK to actually remove itself from those then the EU completely if they wanted to in the future.

I think this is a Scofflaw question?

As for sovereignty differences between the EEA/EFTA and the EU, I personally cant agree that its an increase in sovereignty, to me its like some strange side ways crab walk where its given up in new areas and restored in others just to keep the same status quo.

If the UK joined the EEA I don't think they would rejoin the EU. Despite the limitations of the EEA, Norway and Iceland don't seem in any hurry to join the EU.

Again its the lack of political will on why Norway and Iceland dont seem to be in a hurry (but when it looked briefly that Iceland was going to be left to sink during the economic crisis that will quickly formed briefly and then evaporatec when they did get bailed out.)

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually thats a great question. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a system to process a country to leave the EU over a 2 year period. But does the EEA and EFTA actually have a process for a country to leave it formally like the EU?

It might actually be harder for the UK to actually remove itself from those then the EU completely if they wanted to in the future.

I think this is a Scofflaw question?

Actually, the difference is only between having a formal arrangement in place for exit negotiations, and not. One can leave the EU without an exit arrangement at any time, and the same for the EEA/EFTA - the EU, since Lisbon, has a transitional period you can avail of during which an exit agreement can be negotiated.

If the UK wanted just wanted to get the heck out of the EU, no exit negotiations, no nothing, it can ignore the 2-year transitional period - after all, unilateral immediate withdrawal from the treaties would include unilateral withdrawal from the transitional period arrangements, because they're part of those treaties.

It's possible that other parties might consider the treaties as still applying for 2 years even so, but the only court they could go to is the ECJ, and the UK wouldn't be bound by the ECJ's decisions.

What interests me more is whether the UK is considered as having withdrawn from the EU as soon as it notifies its intent to do so, or whether withdrawal only formally takes place at the end of the 2-year (plus extensions) transitional period.

If the latter, then the UK could hold another referendum once the withdrawal agreement has been largely finalised, but before the transitional period expires. Such a referendum would make democratic sense, because it would be clear what the alternatives were, which at this stage is not the case - it would be a much more informed decision than the one currently being made.

In the former case, the UK would have to reapply for membership, which would involve adopting the entire aquis communitaire, including the euro.

The EU's most sensible course of action, then, is to interpret the treaties as meaning the latter situation, and negotiate a hard exit agreement.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

As for sovereignty differences between the EEA/EFTA and the EU, I personally cant agree that its an increase in sovereignty, to me its like some strange side ways crab walk where its given up in new areas and restored in others just to keep the same status quo.

For Norway and Iceland, the 'advantage' (in some eyes) is keeping their fisheries out of the single market, but it's hard to see what equivalent there is in the UK. Neither agriculture nor fisheries is a big issue - the big issue is the finance sector, and the UK finance sector, unlike the Swiss one, is aggressively interested in being able to tap the single market at a retail level as well its labour pool, which means even a set of bilaterals like EFTA (something the EU is strongly opposed to these days) is going to wind up covering nearly everything, including free movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LuckyLloyd

My experience of Nice and Lisbon was our government of the time doing a dreadful job of cogently explaining what the referendums were about. They also lacked an air of conviction and enthusiasm in the EU project. In both cases they upped their game in terms of delivering a stronger message for the rerun and victory was the reward.

It is tempting to label people stupid or xenophobic or misinformed etc, etc but it's virtually impossible to just turn on a tap of EU positivity for the people who need to sell the Remain campaign. Especially for Cameron when he was forced to thread a delicate balancing act on the topic for over a half decade before Brexit was scheduled.

A Tyrant named Militades makes an excellent point when he notes that English people are getting a first opportunity to opine on this thing and that first instinct may very well be "no" to the EU concept. And it may very well be an emotional and misinformed No, but it shouldn't be that surprising when the electorate has never been exposed to much true excitement for the European project.

And while I'd vote "yes" to the concept of the EU and "remain" to this referendum specifically, I would not dare pretend that it doesn't have significant structural and technical problems and is a project in need of a thorough philosophical overhaul.

A Primal Nut

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/non-from-brussels-demands-a-dose-of-reality-on-water-charges-34775005.html

The EU have turned our national government into puppets. Imagine being forced to pass a controversial law because otherwise one far away all powerful body body (the EU commission) will fine us heavily. How is the EU good for Irish democracy? Here's hoping the British people send the EU a message. The countries of Europe need to reclaim our democracy from our unaccountable European overlords.

"The EU will fine us if we don't comply" is now used to shut down all democratic debate. Its scary.

marienbad

A Primal Nut wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/non-from-brussels-demands-a-dose-of-reality-on-water-charges-34775005.html

The EU have turned our national government into puppets. Imagine being forced to pass a controversial law because otherwise one far away all powerful body body (the EU commission) will fine us heavily. How is the EU good for Irish democracy? Here's hoping the British people send the EU a message. The countries of Europe need to reclaim our democracy from our unaccountable European overlords.

"The EU will fine us if we don't comply" is now used to shut down all democratic debate. Its scary.

why don't you read the article .

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's the problem. The Remain side are treating 'economy' and 'society' as synonymous. In other words, they're failing to reply to a huge aspect to the Leave narrative.

-"I want society to live in closer accordance with British values"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

-"I want to see sovereignty taken from Brussels & returned to Parliament"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

-"I'm unhappy with the free movement of people"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

It’s funny how all of the above were soundly rejected by the electorate back in 1975, when the economy was utterly ****ed.

Well, with the exception of immigration, I suppose – emigration was more of an issue back then.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are perfectly decent Brits who feel strongly about these issues of sovereignty, social values and migration, and are voting accordingly.

Is “feeling strongly” a valid substitute for “thinking rationally”?

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Is “feeling strongly” a valid substitute for “thinking rationally”?

One major weakness of the "Remain" Campaign is that they seek to portray "Leave" campaigners as slightly mad/ irrational old racists. This is backfiring badly, as the latest polls demonstrate. Meanwhile RTE's entirely one-sided reporting of Osborne's latest pontifications on the CTA was enough to get me on my bike with my voting paper this morning.

If the "Remain" campaign want to drag victory from the jaws of defeat, they should stop talking down to us, stop telling us why we shouldn't leave and start telling us why we should stay. If you are seriously trying to bring people around to your point of view, you should get off your high horse and do the same.

The Young Wan

I have some questions about my vote in the EU referendum. I'm studying in Wales at the moment and will be in Cardiff on June 23rd. I'm an Irish citizen, so I know I'm entitled to a vote. But do I have to have lived here for a certain period of time to qualify to register?

Also, if I register to vote in the UK does that disqualify the validity of my vote in Ireland?

ancapailldorcha

The Young Wan wrote: »

I have some questions about my vote in the EU referendum. I'm studying in Wales at the moment and will be in Cardiff on June 23rd. I'm an Irish citizen, so I know I'm entitled to a vote. But do I have to have lived here for a certain period of time to qualify to register?

Also, if I register to vote in the UK does that disqualify the validity of my vote in Ireland?

I think you are. Residency is the main criteria. You might need a National Insurance number though. Tomorrow is the deadline. Try and see if it works!

The Young Wan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you are. Residency is the main criteria. You might need a National Insurance number though. Tomorrow is the deadline. Try and see if it works!

Yeah, I don't have an NI and it's probably too late to attempt to get one?

A Dub in Glasgo

The Young Wan wrote: »

I have some questions about my vote in the EU referendum. I'm studying in Wales at the moment and will be in Cardiff on June 23rd. I'm an Irish citizen, so I know I'm entitled to a vote. But do I have to have lived here for a certain period of time to qualify to register?

Also, if I register to vote in the UK does that disqualify the validity of my vote in Ireland?

You need to be on the Electoral Register to vote

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

ancapailldorcha

The Young Wan wrote: »

Yeah, I don't have an NI and it's probably too late to attempt to get one?

I suspect so. I registered last year though. Try anyway. You never know!

The Young Wan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You need to be on the Electoral Register to vote

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

I am aware, thank you.

BailMeOut

Nearly all British people I have ever met absolutely love mainland Europe and certain parts or Ireland (specifically West Cork). When you travel in France, Spain and Portugal you nearly always meet retire British citizens living either partially or permanently abroad and Bordeaux has been taken over by them. From my own experiences British aspire to living in the sun. When a summer holiday in France and the number of yellow regs driving on their motorways is staggering.

Found this interesting article from Independent.co.uk from Nov 2015 [URL="(http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-many-brits-now-live-abroad-that-theyre-causing-immigration-debates-oh-the-irony-a6723006.html)"]here[/URL] about the nearly 4million Brits are living abroad and I bet many more aspire to doing the same.

Surely this will have a huge affect on how they vote as voting to leave could really mess with any future retirement and travel plans....and who wants to queue up at the long line going for a summer holiday in Spain?

It's the killer reason for me as to why they will stay.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

Meanwhile RTE's entirely one-sided reporting of Osborne's latest pontifications on the CTA was enough to get me on my bike with my voting paper this morning.

Because you were outraged at the suggestion that the CTA may not exist post-Brexit?

whatever_ wrote: »

If the "Remain" campaign want to drag victory from the jaws of defeat, they should stop talking down to us, stop telling us why we shouldn't leave and start telling us why we should stay. If you are seriously trying to bring people around to your point of view, you should get off your high horse and do the same.

I just did - you obviously missed it.

If we compare the UK's socio-economic status now to what it was in the early 70s when it joined the EU (or the EC, as it was then), it is clear that the relationship has been beneficial.

Now, you could argue that the UK would be just as well off had it not joined the EU or that it will be just as well off if it now leaves, but, based on any form of rational analysis, that is an incredibly difficult argument to make.

Now, how about you tell us why the UK should leave?

Sam Russell

BailMeOut wrote: »

Nearly all British people I have ever met absolutely love mainland Europe and certain parts or Ireland (specifically West Cork). When you travel in France, Spain and Portugal you nearly always meet retire British citizens living either partially or permanently abroad and Bordeaux has been taken over by them. From my own experiences British aspire to living in the sun. When a summer holiday in France and the number of yellow regs driving on their motorways is staggering.

Found this interesting article from Independent.co.uk from Nov 2015 [URL="(http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-many-brits-now-live-abroad-that-theyre-causing-immigration-debates-oh-the-irony-a6723006.html)"]here[/URL] about the nearly 4million Brits are living abroad and I bet many more aspire to doing the same.

Surely this will have a huge affect on how they vote as voting to leave could really mess with any future retirement and travel plans....and who wants to queue up at the long line going for a summer holiday in Spain?

It's the killer reason for me as to why they will stay.

What will it cost the ex-pats when they have a medical emergency abroad and produce their no longer valid E111 card?

Will they have the right to remain in France or Spain if they vote to leave?

Does anyone know what will happen if they vote to leave the EU?

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

As for sovereignty differences between the EEA/EFTA and the EU, I personally cant agree that its an increase in sovereignty, to me its like some strange side ways crab walk where its given up in new areas and restored in others just to keep the same status quo.

Well under the EEA/EFTA they would be free of 80% or so of EU Law. Only the single market acquis would remain and much of these rules remaining are similar to those that exist under the WTO anyway.

In the EEA they could agree their own free trade agreements.

They would be exempt from common EU external tariffs. Also exempt from EU VAT Policy, the CAP and CFP, the common defence and foreign policy, justice and home affairs policy, ECJ rulings etc.

They would have reduced payment into the system. Norway pays as much as 17% less per capita to the EU. The UK would pay about 50% less per capita.

As for immigration, they have access to the EEA "Emergency Brake" mechanism not available to EU members.

If there's a vote in favour of brexit I could see the negotiations starting from one of two positions. The safe option would be to start with EEA, which would bring a lot of the benefits of non-EU membership while retaining a lot of advantages, then see what additional exemptions they could manage. Or they could start with full exit operating under WTO rules and see what sort of trade deal they could get.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well under the EEA/EFTA they would be free of 80% or so of EU Law. Only the single market acquis would remain and much of these rules remaining are similar to those that exist under the WTO anyway.

I think you might have that the wrong way around. The vast majority of EU law is related to the single market.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think you might have that the wrong way around. The vast majority of EU law is related to the single market.

It is easy enough to say that if you limit what you mean by legislation to one type of legal instrument (and I've seen this done a number of times). But note that this is not the EU's definition of legislation.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

Note that this omits "Decisions" many of which may not apply to Norway but are still officially classed as legislation.

Scofflaw

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is easy enough to say that if you limit what you mean by legislation to one type of legal instrument (and I've seen this done a number of times). But note that this is not the EU's definition of legislation.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

Note that this omits "Decisions" many of which may not apply to Norway but are still officially classed as legislation.

I admit I would have thought Norway would miss out on quite a lot of EU legislation by virtue of not being in the CAP.

But while CAP is a major legislative area, I'm not sure it's an area the UK really cares about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Because you were outraged at the suggestion that the CTA may not exist post-Brexit?
I just did - you obviously missed it.

If we compare the UK's socio-economic status now to what it was in the early 70s when it joined the EU (or the EC, as it was then), it is clear that the relationship has been beneficial.

Now, you could argue that the UK would be just as well off had it not joined the EU or that it will be just as well off if it now leaves, but, based on any form of rational analysis, that is an incredibly difficult argument to make.

Now, how about you tell us why the UK should leave?

The CTA will continue to exist if Brexit happens. There is no legal reason why it would not. I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area. If Britain and Ireland agree this, there is little the EU would do to prevent it. In the event of Brexit, the EU will have far bigger issues to deal with than trying to prevent British and Irish people trading, working and living together.

I don't understand your argument about socio-economic status. However, I don't have to argue that Britain has not benefitted from EU membership. We are where we are. The point is, do we want to continue to be members, with all the associated risks ?

I think the "Remain" side would do well to reconsider its strategy. The queue of "prefects" and "head boys" (on both sides of the Irish Sea) who trot out the same relentless propaganda about what might happen to the British economy are missing the point. People will vote based on their own experiences, not on half-baked economic pie-in-the-sky. I've been looking at the last few pages of this forum, and I see more of the same - even when rigorously applied, economics is not a science !

I've advanced some of my reasoning before, and I don't see any point in doing so again. However, doing so has been beneficial for me, so thanks for helping me clarify my views.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

The CTA will continue to exist if Brexit happens. There is no legal reason why it would not. I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area. If Britain and Ireland agree this, there is little the EU would do to prevent it. In the event of Brexit, the EU will have far bigger issues to deal with than trying to prevent British and Irish people trading, working and living together.

This is typical of the Leave campaign – everything will be fine, nothing to see here.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the CTA would exist post-Brexit. None. It’s possible that some sort of exception would be made, but it’s far from certain.

whatever_ wrote: »

I don't understand your argument about socio-economic status. However, I don't have to argue that Britain has not benefitted from EU membership. We are where we are. The point is, do we want to continue to be members, with all the associated risks ?

So you want to ignore any benefits the UK has enjoyed from being part of the EU, ignore the risks associated with leaving the EU and base your decision entirely on the risks associated with remaining in the EU?

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

This is typical of the Leave campaign – everything will be fine, nothing to see here.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the CTA would exist post-Brexit. None. It’s possible that some sort of exception would be made, but it’s far from certain.
So you want to ignore any benefits the UK has enjoyed from being part of the EU, ignore the risks associated with leaving the EU and base your decision entirely on the risks associated with remaining in the EU?

Finally - a worthwhile discussion ? Would you outline to me why you think the CTA might cease to exist, in the event of Brexit ?

whatstherush

whatever_ wrote: »

I expect it would be extended to a Common Travel and Trade area.

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

Finally - a worthwhile discussion ? Would you outline to me why you think the CTA might cease to exist, in the event of Brexit ?

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

ancapailldorcha

whatstherush wrote: »

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

The "take back our borders" narrative seems a bit pointless if there is going to be a huge back door remaining wide open.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

Exactly ... no idea ! People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles). When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis that they are unable to manage not to mention the Dutch wanting a Referendum as well ... Britain and Ireland will sew up a CTTA (common travel and trade agreement) in days if not hours and the EU will quietly acquiesce ...

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is easy enough to say that if you limit what you mean by legislation to one type of legal instrument (and I've seen this done a number of times). But note that this is not the EU's definition of legislation.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

Note that this omits "Decisions" many of which may not apply to Norway but are still officially classed as legislation.

Do you know where in Outside and Inside that graph is? I'm looking through the 900 page report and I havnt found it yet.

Though I found some other juicy bits I'd like to come back around to later if possible


I've been using the official source (i think) of the document here: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/?q=&ch=5

and chrome auto translate.

Its got some interesting things so far. But I've yet to find that chart.


for example when people get into talk about how much of a % of laws are EU in origin and debate on the figure I like this part of the report:

An estimate for Norway at approximately 30 percent of the laws that are affected by the EU / EEA seems to be fairly consistent with similar studies in some other countries. In the report which the Committee has obtained about the meaning of the EEA Agreement for Liechtenstein, it is estimated that approximately 27 percent of all laws and about 28 percent of all regulations serve to implement the EU / EEA law. 49 In a Danish study from 2010 it is stated that EU law affects approximately 20 percent of Danish laws and about 13 percent of regulations. 50 Since Denmark is a part of something more than Norway's, due to the difference probably most methodical inequality and differences between national legal systems. It may also indicate that the difference between Denmark as EU member and Norway under the EEA mm in the legal field are not so great. It is in line with the experiences many Norwegian EU / EEA lawyers for almost twenty years has made ​​in meeting with Danish colleagues.

Also this is one prospect that may be cold water for some

However, the practical significance is that any implemented EU / EEA rule by contending supersedes any Norwegian rule on legal or regulatory level. In § 2, even an EU / EEA rule implemented by regulations at conflict take precedence over an ordinary Norwegian statute

So EEA law will still supersede national law.

Both of these are from section 7.4

there's more but I'd need to quote huge paragraphs to get the context across correctly.


Section 6 and 7 is an interesting read about the actual processing of EU law to the EEA and norway's national laws



EDIT: found the graph. Its right at the very end.

ancapailldorcha

whatever_ wrote: »

Exactly ... no idea ! People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles). When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

I find the opposite is true. The Leave narrative tends to peak at "Take back our borders/country/passports" and "Sovereignty".

whatever_ wrote: »

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

The EU might. The point is that EU industries have a strong incentive to lobby for tariffs on UK exports. Lol quips don't really answer this question. Any EU trade deal will need ratification from most EU parliaments most of whom won't care one whit about German cars or French wine.

whatever_ wrote: »

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis that they are unable to manage not to mention the Dutch wanting a Referendum as well ... Britain and Ireland will sew up a CTTA (common travel and trade agreement) in days if not hours and the EU will quietly acquiesce ...

The CTA predates the EU. In any case, all any EU migrant will need to do is get a cheap flight to Dublin or Belfast and head to mainland Britain from there. Do you seriously think the CTA status quo will remain in place in the event of the UK leaving the EU?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Further to the above, the border between the UK and Ireland will become one of the EU's external borders and must therefore be secured. What form that security will take remains to be seen.

As long as Ireland is not forced to join the Schenghen Area, how would the CTA interfere with our obligations to the EU?

Forcing Ireland to join Schenghen would on the other end definitely compromise the CTA as we can obviously not be part of two distinct border control free areas ... but it would be a politically difficult move I think.

Would any EU politician really force a decision which would in practice reinstate a border between the ROI and Northern Ireland? (basically a symbolic reversal of the peace process which could have serious consequences)

BlitzKrieg

Ok I found the graph.

So yes you are correct that the CAP takes up a large % of regulations but not directives. But the paper itself emphasises that we shouldnt be giving more weight to those regulations, it highlights that there are more regulations in the CAP area not because there is more control exerting there or more importance given to that area but because regulations in the CAP are time sensitive and limited in effect. Its actually impossible for them to be incorporated into EEA law due to the length of delay it takes to process EU law to EEA law. By the time such regulations are processed into EEA law they will have expired and no longer in effect in the EU.


The paper makes a good point here:

The overview also illustrates that there is no correlation between how important a site is in the EU (political, economic, judicial, administrative or otherwise) and how many acts are given. Energy is a very important area, but only account for 0.5 percent of the total net acts. The whole category "right of establishment and the free movement of services" stands only for 1.4 per cent and "Free movement of workers and social policy" only 1.8 percent. Compared with these key sectors, there is no proportionality in that 42 per cent of the acts on agriculture, or 9.4 percent connections to third countries.

Again

thank you for pointing me to this. Its been a rather good read.

I'm now particularly interested in the effect EEA membership will have on the UK in terms of red tape as from reading sections of this, one of the biggest issues the report had with the EEA is how slow it is to respond to changes, it seems to be quite critical of how updates to the EEA can be delayed and there seems to be a lot more red tape involved then there already is with the EU.

Also since EEA agreements have to be unanimous will the current members want the UK joining if its going to risk more delay in the process?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Is “feeling strongly” a valid substitute for “thinking rationally”?

I disagree with the concept of preserving British values, but I certainly believe that a rational argument can be made, to the effect that Britain has a value system which is sometimes incompatible with that of the EU in general.

I am not suggesting that these 'British' values are unique to the United Kingdom. They often overlap with ally economies with a broadly Anglo-Saxon-type, classical outlook, such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and even Germany and the Netherlands (probably in that order).

However, for many (perfectly sensible) British voters, it is preferable to rely on their own democratic system to order society in accordance with their values, rather than hoping that other large member states like France, Italy and Spain don't erode the power of the UK's domestic institutions.

This is a debatable point, it is not an irrational one.

Sam Russell

whatstherush wrote: »

There is no way this can happen while Ireland remains within the EU. Ireland will be in single EU market and a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU as a whole.

The CTA was hit pretty hard by Ryanair insisting on passports for travel within the CTA.

I think what is likely is that the EU border for people will be the Irish Sea, with NI and Irish people entering GB through the British Border Control.

Trade will probably do the same thing for most things - agriculture might be an exception.

whatstherush

Sam Russell wrote: »

The CTA was hit pretty hard by Ryanair insisting on passports for travel within the CTA.

I think what is likely is that the EU border for people will be the Irish Sea, with NI and Irish people entering GB through the British Border Control.

Trade will probably do the same thing for most things - agriculture might be an exception.

This may be the case, but the notion put forward by whatever that a formal bi lateral agreement will exist between Ireland and the UK dealing with trade ala the CTA is an non starter.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

People on the "Remain" side pontificate endlessly about the possible economic impact (based on a weak application of pseudo-scientific principles).

The Remain arguments have been based on sound models (nobody is saying they are perfect) from pretty much every economic organisation there is.

What have the Leave campaign produced in response? “Ah sure, it’ll be grand”.

whatever_ wrote: »

When it comes to a specific issue ... you haven't a clue.

The border between the UK and Ireland is open right now, is it not? That is an indisputable fact.

That the border will remain open post-Brexit is not an indisputable fact – neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows exactly what will happen. What we can say is that the border cannot get any more open than it currently is, so the scenario post-Brexit can only be, at best, as good as it is now. But, given that one of the stated aims of the Leave campaign is reduce immigration and that, post-Brexit, the UK-Ireland border will represent one of the EU’s external frontiers, the probability that it will remain as open as it is now is virtually zero.

So, what is indisputable is that any special arrangement between the UK and Ireland post-Brexit cannot possibly be better than the arrangement that currently exists.

whatever_ wrote: »

Who's going to stop Irish farmers selling their produce in the North ? Angela Merkel ?

Is Dublin going to introduce export tariffs ? Lol !

You see, what you’re failing to grasp here is that, post-Brexit, from a British perspective, Ireland is no longer Ireland. Post-Brexit, as far as Britain is concerned, Ireland is the EU and Britain can no more selectively maintain an open border with Ireland than it can with Bulgaria, Greece or Portugal. That said, I’ve no doubt that political sensitivities will be taken into consideration with regard to the border between the North and the Republic.

whatever_ wrote: »

The EU has a 20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no growth in the Eurozone, a weak currency and a migration crisis...

The UK has a £20 billion hole in their accounts, little or no economic growth, a currency declining in value and (apparently) a migration crisis.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

As long as Ireland is not forced to join the Schenghen Area, how would the CTA interfere with our obligations to the EU?

Well, the UK will be outside the EU and will apparently not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory – that would necessitate border controls between Ireland and the UK.

Bob24 wrote: »

Would any EU politician really force a decision which would in practice reinstate a border between the ROI and Northern Ireland?

Surely it’s the other way around? The EU will insist that the UK allows free movement of EU citizens to/from its territory if the UK wants access to the common market. So, in effect, it would be the decision of British politicians to reinstate a border (should it come to pass).

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I disagree with the concept of preserving British values, but I certainly believe that a rational argument can be made, to the effect that Britain has a value system which is sometimes incompatible with that of the EU in general.

I am not suggesting that these 'British' values are unique to the United Kingdom. They often overlap with ally economies with a broadly Anglo-Saxon-type, classical outlook, such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and even Germany and the Netherlands (probably in that order).

However, for many (perfectly sensible) British voters, it is preferable to rely on their own democratic system to order society in accordance with their values, rather than hoping that other large member states like France, Italy and Spain don't erode the power of the UK's domestic institutions.

This is a debatable point, it is not an irrational one.

Ok, but the obvious question to ask in response is to what extent have British values been “eroded” by their membership of the EU to date? To what extent would that erosion have taken place had the UK remained outside the EU? How do we even go about quantifying such a thing?

Personally, I’m not at all convinced that British “values” are all that different from French or German values, for example, and I’m really not at all convinced that Britain is becoming “less British” as a result of EU membership.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, the UK will be outside the EU and will apparently not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory – that would necessitate border controls between Ireland and the UK.

"not be willing to agree to the free movement of EU citizens to its territory" is too vague and makes things sound more dramatic than they would really be. What they might do is to restrict the right for EU citizens to work in the UK. But there is no way they would require visas to visit the country and they would most likely not required passports to be stamped, so in all likelyhood EU citiznes would still be free to travel to the UK for leisure or business.

From that perspective there would be no big change in terms of border control and the CTA.

Also, note that the CTA as it is (with the UK in the EU) is already broken in the way you describe: a non-EU citizen can enter the ROI with a visa valid here but not in the UK. And they can then drive/sail/fly to the UK with no border control even though in theory they are not supposed to go there. The UK and Ireland seem to be OK with it and with the fact that spot checks within each state's territory are sufficient.

djpbarry wrote: »

Surely it’s the other way around? The EU will insist that the UK allows free movement of EU citizens to/from its territory if the UK wants access to the common market. So, in effect, it would be the decision of British politicians to reinstate a border (should it come to pass).

Don't agree there. The status quo is that the island of Ireland is border free and a Brexit woudn't change that unless the EU insists on forcing the ROI to join Schenghen. Of course the whole thing would be a shared responsibility but the actual decision triggering the reinstatement of a border would be an EU one.



As with most of the Brexit related predictions though, the only honest answer on the impact on the CTA is "we don't know for sure". Things will depend on the political mood and on what each country really sees as its national interest when facing the actual situation. If there is a strong will in the UK and Ireland to keep the CTA and no one is going against it, it will stay. If for some reason third party countries decide it is their interest to torpedo it, they will certainly have bullets to do so.

K-9

whatstherush wrote: »

This may be the case, but the notion put forward by whatever that a formal bi lateral agreement will exist between Ireland and the UK dealing with trade ala the CTA is an non starter.

I suppose it depends on if EU law would supercede the CTA which is older legislation, and if as a land border country there are any expectations and extra requirements. Leave side say there'll be little to no affect, Remain there'll probably be some.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/revenue-plans-for-renewed-border-control-in-event-of-brexit-1.2672152

From that there doesn't appear to be any major change, maybe an automated check point which wouldn't be a major inconvenience, nothing like the foot and mouth crisis as an example.

The Norway/Sweden example is being looked at but again Norway is in the EEA.

Even if UK goes it alone, any deal with the EU like Switzerland or the EEA involves free movement, and as mentioned that is also in the UK's interest for expats, business etc.