EU Referendum

[Sour Mash]

so you vote to leave our biggest export market and we will still have to to pay the same money into the eu and abide by tradeing rules with out any say on the rules to have access to there markets or leave and refuse to pay in and have tariffs put on us and accept less investment and our auto industry. and big manufacturis relocating to the mainland and poorer standard of living as a nation. its a more complicated argument and people will need to understand the consequences of being a island trapped outside our biggest markets.we were one of the poorest nations before we joined the eu and have had massive investment since because of the single market.

Why would we be trapped? You think the EU would walk away from trade with one of it's biggest markets? A huge successful economy in it's own right?

[solentstars]

Why would we be trapped? You think the EU would walk away from trade with one of it's biggest markets? A huge successful economy in it's own right?

so you believe we can just walk away with out problems then based on a hunch,most of alot of industry is foreign owned and would move ther bases over to the mainland eu countries over time for the single market access .its not easy choice thats why people will need to make a hard choice of reality over emotion.we are living in a globalized world with major trading blocks. i rather be at the table making rules rather then outside with no say in decisions on laws which may effect us.some of choices we have outside are below .

[h=3]New negotiations and alternative roles[/h] If the UK were to leave, there would of course be intense negotiations whereby the UK seeks to reach agreement with the EU, for example, on free trade – ideally seeking to retain some of the benefits already obtained with minimum regulation.

Those in favour of leaving point to Norway and Switzerland as examples of success stories.

It is true that these countries have made independent arrangements work for them. But it is doubtful that the UK would be happy with the Norwegian model – one where it continues to contribute significantly to EU programmes and be bound by regulations with no say or voting power. It would be an EU-influencer, not a leading player in decision-making. Unacceptable.

The Swiss model, although taking many years to negotiate, would seem preferable. Here the UK would negotiate separate arrangements with the EU, enabling it, within reason, to cherry-pick what it wants. Of course, this relies on Brussels playing ball.

[h=3]Impact on global positioning[/h] Let us not forget that the world is much bigger than Europe and many other trade agreements dealing with the rest of the world will also need to be reviewed and negotiated by the UK.

In doing so alone, the UK will have less political weight around the table, which could impact its ability to get as good a deal.

It might consider joining another association such as European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and adopting its agreements, but it is doubtful the UK would be any happier accepting agreements that it was not involved in shaping.

Presumably as a precursor to all this, the Foreign Secretary launched a review last year to analyse what the UK's membership of the EU means for the national interest. The Government is clearly starting to collect the collateral to build its case for what will be a passionate, divisive and vocal debate.

[View From The Top]

Why would we be trapped? You think the EU would walk away from trade with one of it's biggest markets? A huge successful economy in it's own right?

 

Much of that success based on being in the EU.

[Deano6]

Why do you want that?

 

I'm a fan of the federated governance model and am pro-harmonization. It's worked well in the US as well as many other countries.

 

I like Europe and Europeans. Some people don't like change but not me. One day we will all just be citizens of the world.

 

It's all fairly arbitrary anyway. Why should London get to determine the laws in, say, Devon and Dumbarton? The world is becoming increasingly globalised and having many different sets of laws and standards just increases costs of doing business. The more of these barriers we can remove the better for me - and that doesn't end at the edges of the Eurozone.

 

None of this matters in terms of culture and national identity, which is what you make it and not determined by the city where policies are set. I'll keep supporting England and team GB no matter who makes the laws.

 

 

Why are you against it?

[Sour Mash]

so you believe we can just walk away with out problems then based on a hunch,most of alot of industry is foreign owned and would move ther bases over to the mainland eu countries over time for the single market access .its not easy choice thats why people will need to make a hard choice of reality over emotion.we are living in a globalized world with major trading blocks. i rather be at the table making rules rather then outside with no say in decisions on laws which may effect us.some of choices we have outside are below .

[h=3]New negotiations and alternative roles[/h] If the UK were to leave, there would of course be intense negotiations whereby the UK seeks to reach agreement with the EU, for example, on free trade – ideally seeking to retain some of the benefits already obtained with minimum regulation.

Those in favour of leaving point to Norway and Switzerland as examples of success stories.

It is true that these countries have made independent arrangements work for them. But it is doubtful that the UK would be happy with the Norwegian model – one where it continues to contribute significantly to EU programmes and be bound by regulations with no say or voting power. It would be an EU-influencer, not a leading player in decision-making. Unacceptable.

The Swiss model, although taking many years to negotiate, would seem preferable. Here the UK would negotiate separate arrangements with the EU, enabling it, within reason, to cherry-pick what it wants. Of course, this relies on Brussels playing ball.

[h=3]Impact on global positioning[/h] Let us not forget that the world is much bigger than Europe and many other trade agreements dealing with the rest of the world will also need to be reviewed and negotiated by the UK.

In doing so alone, the UK will have less political weight around the table, which could impact its ability to get as good a deal.

It might consider joining another association such as European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and adopting its agreements, but it is doubtful the UK would be any happier accepting agreements that it was not involved in shaping.

Presumably as a precursor to all this, the Foreign Secretary launched a review last year to analyse what the UK's membership of the EU means for the national interest. The Government is clearly starting to collect the collateral to build its case for what will be a passionate, divisive and vocal debate.

We're one of the biggest world economies, we wouldn't have any problems arranging our own trade agreements, possibly more favourable than those that are currently in use.

 

Look at how much the German and French economies need us, they're in no position to freeze us out in the cold.

 

Your suggestion that our economy will somehow collapse is frankly ridiculous.

[Sour Mash]

Much of that success based on being in the EU.

Much of it? What state do you think the UK economy be in if we were outside the EU?

[Sour Mash]

I'm a fan of the federated governance model and am pro-harmonization. It's worked well in the US as well as many other countries.

 

I like Europe and Europeans. Some people don't like change but not me. One day we will all just be citizens of the world.

 

It's all fairly arbitrary anyway. Why should London get to determine the laws in, say, Devon and Dumbarton? The world is becoming increasingly globalised and having many different sets of laws and standards just increases costs of doing business. The more of these barriers we can remove the better for me - and that doesn't end at the edges of the Eurozone.

 

None of this matters in terms of culture and national identity, which is what you make it and not determined by the city where policies are set. I'll keep supporting England and team GB no matter who makes the laws.

 

 

Why are you against it?

How is governance from the same capital city, that has successfully governed for many hundreds of years, 'arbitrary'?

 

Setting the same laws and governance for an English town as Athens, purely because it's suited short-term political agreements is most definitely arbitrary.

 

I believe as a nation we should be able to make our own laws and control our own borders.

[View From The Top]

Much of it? What state do you think the UK economy be in if we were outside the EU?

 

You tell me?

[Sour Mash]

You tell me?

 

You're the one telling us that much of our economic strength is based on being in the EU, I just asked what condition you thought our economy would be if we were outside the EU.

[solentstars]

We're one of the biggest world economies, we wouldn't have any problems arranging our own trade agreements, possibly more favourable than those that are currently in use.

 

Look at how much the German and French economies need us, they're in no position to freeze us out in the cold.

 

Your suggestion that our economy will somehow collapse is frankly ridiculous.

ok if that what you believe,you vote on that and believe you would get better deals than being in the eu i . i expect the germans will build the mini car in Germany instead of here and nissen move there car factory to france and ford and and vauxhall will follow over time to a market of 420 million customers and i expect the scots will be off as well has they don,t want leave the eu.

[Sour Mash]

ok if that what you believe,you vote on that and believe you would get better deals than being in the eu i . i expect the germans will build the mini car in Germany instead of here and nissen move there car factory to france and ford and and vauxhall will follow over time to a market of 420 million customers and i expect the scots will be off as well has they don,t want leave the eu.

Yes, every major, successful, long-standing manufacturer will rush out the door You do scare easily.

[solentstars]

I'll reply when my 13 year old gets in and can translate this pony for me.

i suppose at your age and poor eyesight why i am not surprised that you need help from a 13 year old,but then i realized you being a ukip supporter ..that's explains it all. Edited 28 May, 2015 by solentstars

[moonraker]

Those who are against the EU seem to me to be backward looking, believing that a UK on its own can have a degree of influence far in excess of our true position in the world. Whilst there are many issues with the EU it is still vital to our future. Anti Europeans can deny all they like that foreign investment won't migrate to the rest of Europe, the truth is it will, and we will all suffer.

[Sour Mash]

Those who are against the EU seem to me to be backward looking, believing that a UK on its own can have a degree of influence far in excess of our true position in the world. Whilst there are many issues with the EU it is still vital to our future. Anti Europeans can deny all they like that foreign investment won't migrate to the rest of Europe, the truth is it will, and we will all suffer.

Who has suggested any of that? Very sad to see some have such little faith in this country and its people and seem to think our prosperity is entirely linked to control from Brussels. A very narrow, constrained view of the world.

[Wes Tender]

so you vote to leave our biggest export market and we will still have to to pay the same money into the eu and abide by tradeing rules with out any say on the rules to have access to there markets or leave and refuse to pay in and have tariffs put on us and accept less investment and our auto industry. and big manufacturis relocating to the mainland and poorer standard of living as a nation. its a more complicated argument and people will need to understand the consequences of being a island trapped outside our biggest markets.we were one of the poorest nations before we joined the eu and have had massive investment since because of the single market.

 

I'm afraid I'm with LD. What you write is largely incomprehensible.

 

If we were to leave the EU, why would we have to still pay into their coffers?

Why would we have to abide by their trading rules and why wouldn't we have any say in them anyway? The trading basis between us would be by mutual agreement, not imposed on us without redress.

Why would there necessarily be trading tariffs imposed on us?

Why would the auto manufacturers and other manufacturers relocate to the European mainland when it would be massively expensive to do so and take a long time to get a skilled workforce up to capable standards?

 

Trade would continue on much the same basis, as it is as much in their interests to continue to trade with us as it is for us to trade with them. If trade tariffs were introduced, we would reciprocate, to nobody's benefit. The Foreign owned car manufacturers are here because they also wish to sell their product to the UK market and in any event, much of that car production is sold outside the Eurozone. If any chose to withdraw, which is unlikely, then we have a very good skilled workforce and the potential therefore to resurrect the British Car industry.

 

My position as stated before, is that I'm happy to remain in Europe, but solely on the basis that we entered it, as part of a Common Trade Market. If we cannot negotiate a return of some distance in that direction, then we should leave.

 

We were one of the poorest nations before joining the Common Market because the war had beggared us and the post war Labour governments and the trade unions made our situation even worse. It is hard to make out a case either way as to where we would have been now not having entered into the Common Market. No doubt we would have intitially been trading more with our Commonwealth, but even from outside the Eurozone we would still have had substantial trade with Europe.

[Deano6]

How is governance from the same capital city, that has successfully governed for many hundreds of years, 'arbitrary'?

 

Setting the same laws and governance for an English town as Athens, purely because it's suited short-term political agreements is most definitely arbitrary.

 

I believe as a nation we should be able to make our own laws and control our own borders.

 

Fair enough, I didn't expect you to agree with me.

 

I would point out that in a federated model, such as in the US, policy and laws are still made by the individual states. Each state is set up to be its own standalone incubation ground which can experiment with laws it thinks work for them, which will be given a chance to succeed or fail. Those policies that are successful are picked up by more states and those that don't are allowed to die. There is also the ability to have diversity of policy tailored to the needs and beliefs of the different locations that will not be expected to converge over time.

 

However there is also overarching policy set at the federal level to ensure there is a general consistency of values and to ensure the interests of the entire American nation are protected.

 

People are free to move and find work between states as they wish.

 

I like it. It works well. I imagine Brits won't like it as their privileged position of being born into a richer country as an accident of birth will be eroded from them. I get that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Anti Europeans can deny all they like that foreign investment won't migrate to the rest of Europe, the truth is it will, and we will all suffer.

 

You're doing what all EUphiles do , you're somehow mistaking Europe for the EU. The EU is not Europe , I am very pro Europe . I love France , find the Greeks lovely people and admire the German work ethic . It is a fantastic place , and I love spending time in Portugal , Spain , and other countries . Being anti EU is not being anti Europe no matter how many times the EU apologists say it .

 

And anyway we've heard all this nonsense before . The same nutters trying to scare us now said the same things about being outside the ERM & then The Euro. Those worked out well didn't they ?

[moonraker]

I have great faith in the the UK and I did not say our prosperity is entirely linked to 'Brussels'. My point is that the claims that we can independently negotiate trade deals that are at least as beneficial as the EU is naive. My view is the opposite to your accusation, it is the anti EU position that is narrow and constrained. Lord D makes the point that the EU is not Europe, thank you I am so pleased you have cleared up my lifelong confusion have a gold star.

Edited 28 May, 2015 by moonraker

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm afraid I'm with LD. What you write is largely incomprehensible.

 

If we were to leave the EU, why would we have to still pay into their coffers?

Why would we have to abide by their trading rules and why wouldn't we have any say in them anyway? The trading basis between us would be by mutual agreement, not imposed on us without redress.

Why would there necessarily be trading tariffs imposed on us?

Why would the auto manufacturers and other manufacturers relocate to the European mainland when it would be massively expensive to do so and take a long time to get a skilled workforce up to capable standards?

 

Trade would continue on much the same basis, as it is as much in their interests to continue to trade with us as it is for us to trade with them. If trade tariffs were introduced, we would reciprocate, to nobody's benefit. The Foreign owned car manufacturers are here because they also wish to sell their product to the UK market and in any event, much of that car production is sold outside the Eurozone. If any chose to withdraw, which is unlikely, then we have a very good skilled workforce and the potential therefore to resurrect the British Car industry.

 

My position as stated before, is that I'm happy to remain in Europe, but solely on the basis that we entered it, as part of a Common Trade Market. If we cannot negotiate a return of some distance in that direction, then we should leave.

 

We were one of the poorest nations before joining the Common Market because the war had beggared us and the post war Labour governments and the trade unions made our situation even worse. It is hard to make out a case either way as to where we would have been now not having entered into the Common Market. No doubt we would have intitially been trading more with our Commonwealth, but even from outside the Eurozone we would still have had substantial trade with Europe.

 

Anything we make would still have to comply with EU standards but we would have no say in defining these.

[hutch]

I was 18 when I voted yes to join the common market. Even then, I knew that we were voting for much more than just opening up trade markets. We voted to become part of Europe. You can't just hit the rewind button 40 years later because we've changed our minds.

 

There's not a lot wrong with Britain's membership of the EU in macro terms. Just think how much worse it would be if we were in the Eurozone, or signed up to Shengen.

 

The planned restrictions on access to benefits for EU migrants will go a long way to addressing the bad feelings that are stirred up by the media at the moment. And get ultimate sovereignty of British Courts back to the UK. The reputation of the British legal systems for fairness and justice is pretty much second to none.

[CB Saint]

Fair enough, I didn't expect you to agree with me.

 

I would point out that in a federated model, such as in the US, policy and laws are still made by the individual states. Each state is set up to be its own standalone incubation ground which can experiment with laws it thinks work for them, which will be given a chance to succeed or fail. Those policies that are successful are picked up by more states and those that don't are allowed to die. There is also the ability to have diversity of policy tailored to the needs and beliefs of the different locations that will not be expected to converge over time.

 

However there is also overarching policy set at the federal level to ensure there is a general consistency of values and to ensure the interests of the entire American nation are protected.

 

People are free to move and find work between states as they wish.

 

I like it. It works well. I imagine Brits won't like it as their privileged position of being born into a richer country as an accident of birth will be eroded from them. I get that.

 

The key difference is the people living in the US think of themselves as Americans first and Floridians or Californians second. We consider ourselves to be British / French first and Europeans second.

 

Our cultures and ideals in Europe are too diverse for it ever to be a genuine Union.

[Wes Tender]

Anything we make would still have to comply with EU standards but we would have no say in defining these.

 

Give me some examples of products and how they might fall short of EU standards. I see no particular reason why products made over here would fall short of EU standards. The only products that I could stretch my imagination to think of are some food products like our sausages and the mythical requirement for straight bananas, and car exhaust emissions which are strictly regulated if we are to export to places like Japan. Of course, we would also be able to set our own standards for imported products which they would have no say in. Ultimately it is best for both parties that this is approached sensibly, rather than confrontationally.

 

What did you have in mind?

[Wes Tender]

I was 18 when I voted yes to join the common market. Even then, I knew that we were voting for much more than just opening up trade markets. We voted to become part of Europe. You can't just hit the rewind button 40 years later because we've changed our minds.

 

There's not a lot wrong with Britain's membership of the EU in macro terms. Just think how much worse it would be if we were in the Eurozone, or signed up to Shengen.

 

The planned restrictions on access to benefits for EU migrants will go a long way to addressing the bad feelings that are stirred up by the media at the moment. And get ultimate sovereignty of British Courts back to the UK. The reputation of the British legal systems for fairness and justice is pretty much second to none.

 

These are precisely the areas which would appease me if they could be addressed satisfactorily. By satisfactorily, I mean that they would be overturned completely. These are the sort of things that were introduced by the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties and should have been put to the British people in a referendum at the time.

[Sour Mash]

I have great faith in the the UK and I did not say our prosperity is entirely linked to 'Brussels'. My point is that the claims that we can independently negotiate trade deals that are at least as beneficial as the EU is naive. My view is the opposite to your accusation, it is the anti EU position that is narrow and constrained. Lord D makes the point that the EU is not Europe, thank you I am so pleased you have cleared up my lifelong confusion have a done gold star.

You said the EU was vital to our future and we would suffer without it, that doesn't suggest you have much faith in the UK if you think we're that reliant on being controlled from Brussels.

[Sour Mash]

I was 18 when I voted yes to join the common market. Even then, I knew that we were voting for much more than just opening up trade markets. We voted to become part of Europe. You can't just hit the rewind button 40 years later because we've changed our minds.

 

There's not a lot wrong with Britain's membership of the EU in macro terms. Just think how much worse it would be if we were in the Eurozone, or signed up to Shengen.

 

The planned restrictions on access to benefits for EU migrants will go a long way to addressing the bad feelings that are stirred up by the media at the moment. And get ultimate sovereignty of British Courts back to the UK. The reputation of the British legal systems for fairness and justice is pretty much second to none.

The restrictions on benefits will have little impact. The problem with such large sacale immigration is the flooding of the job and housing markets.

[moonraker]

The key difference is the people living in the US think of themselves as Americans first and Floridians or Californians second. We consider ourselves to be British / French first and Europeans second.

 

Our cultures and ideals in Europe are too diverse for it ever to be a genuine Union.

Not quite that simple tough, many Texans are Texans first and Americans second, there are many groups in the US who do not consider themselves Americans first. The cultural divides in the US are as broad and wide as Europe’s, Californians, Texans, Alaskans, New Englander, have very different outlooks. It works precisely because it is Federal not in spite of it.

The Scots are Scots First, Europeans second and British third yet they are part of the UK and many who oppose the EU want them to stay within the UK.

[moonraker]

You said the EU was vital to our future and we would suffer without it, that doesn't suggest you have much faith in the UK if you think we're that reliant on being controlled from Brussels.

 

I have great faith in the UK, and your rather naive statement about control from Brussels only demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the EU, come back whan the Commision President delivers the Queens Speech.

[buctootim]

The problem with such large sacale immigration is the flooding of the job and housing markets.

 

The housing problem is because we arent building enough and still wouldnt be if immigration didnt exist. Flooded job market? nah

 

[Sour Mash]

The housing problem is because we arent building enough and still wouldnt be if immigration didnt exist. Flooded job market? nah

 

You think we can and should be building housing and associated infrastructure for 300k+ immigrants per year?

 

Large scale immigration depresses wages, whilst inflating demand for housing in many areas, that's a fact.

[Sour Mash]

I have great faith in the UK, and your rather naive statement about control from Brussels only demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the EU, come back whan the Commision President delivers the Queens Speech.

You clearly don't have great faith in the UK, as you think we're reliant on the EU to be a successful and prosperous country, sad to see really.

[TheCholulaKid]

The key difference is the people living in the US think of themselves as Americans first and Floridians or Californians second.

 

Simply not true. Try telling that to a Texan for starters.

[hutch]

The restrictions on benefits will have little impact. The problem with such large sacale immigration is the flooding of the job and housing markets.

Why would it be a problem if they're coming here to work, and pay taxes and NI?

[Sour Mash]

Why would it be a problem if they're coming here to work, and pay taxes and NI?

Depresses wages, over-inflates demand for housing and services.

 

On the basis that half of China would like to come and work in the UK and would pay taxes and NI, by your argument we should also have open borders for their workforce?

[buctootim]

Immigration from the EU was always going to spike for a few years after a big enlargement from the poorer Eastern European countries. That will change. In the late 80s and early 1990s immigration to / from the EU was almost flat or slightly negative. As soon as the economies equalise - and they will - immigration will stop and probably reverse. Poland's GDP has increased 9 fold since 1990, 25 years of continuous growth whilst Britain's has increased by only 2.5 times. In the 1980s British workers were going to Germany for work. In the 2030s I wouldnt be surprised if they are going to Poland.

[hutch]

So you're not really looking at this from a striaghtforward EU in/out perspective then. You want some good old fashioned protectionism.

 

Can't see that working in the 21st Century.

[CB Saint]

Simply not true. Try telling that to a Texan for starters.

 

Texans aside, my experience of working there tells me otherwise.

 

Yes they have differences on outlook - but the differences are no where near as extreme as Europe

 

A Californian and an New Yorker are likely to find far more common ground than a Brit and a Latvian

[moonraker]

You clearly don't have great faith in the UK, as you think we're reliant on the EU to be a successful and prosperous country, sad to see really.

Oh did the Commission President deliver the Queens Speech, thought not.. My faith in the UK and supporting our continued membership are not mutually exclusive. Whilst we may be OK without the EU I firmly believe we are better off in than out and that the EU is better with us in it.

[Sour Mash]

Immigration from the EU was always going to spike for a few years after a big enlargement from the poorer Eastern European countries. That will change. In the late 80s and early 1990s immigration to / from the EU was almost flat or slightly negative. As soon as the economies equalise - and they will - immigration will stop and probably reverse. Poland's GDP has increased 9 fold since 1990, 25 years of continuous growth whilst Britain's has increased by only 2.5 times. In the 1980s British workers were going to Germany for work. In the 2030s I wouldnt be surprised if they are going to Poland.

"Going to spike for a few years" How long has it been now? And what were we told back in 2004? I bet you believed the predicitions back then.

 

But regardless, this shows you're still missing the point. We might need a million immigrants a year, we might need 10 - we have no control in the matter.

[Sour Mash]

Oh did the Commission President deliver the Queens Speech, thought not.. My faith in the UK and supporting our continued membership are not mutually exclusive. Whilst we may be OK without the EU I firmly believe we are better off in than out and that the EU is better with us in it.

What difference does it make who delivered the speech? You actually think that has any significance to what is being discussed.

 

You think we'd suffer and not prosper outside the EU, so you believe our success and prosperity is reliant on the EU, that shows very little faith to me.

[buctootim]

What difference does it make who delivered the speech? You actually think that has any significance to what is being discussed.

 

You think we'd suffer and not prosper outside the EU, so you believe our success and prosperity is reliant on the EU, that shows very little faith to me.

 

 

Almost every other industrialised country is seeking to join or form a trading bloc - NAFTA, AFTA, SAFTA, MERCOSUR, EU but plucky Britain can go it alone with a little faith.

[Sour Mash]

Almost every other industrialised country is seeking to join or form a trading bloc - NAFTA, AFTA, SAFTA, MERCOSUR, EU but plucky Britain can go it alone with a little faith.

Who's suggesting we don't have any trade agreements? You're comparing NAFTA with the EU

[buctootim]

Who's suggesting we don't have any trade agreements? You're comparing NAFTA with the EU

 

So which trading bloc do you think we should be in?

[moonraker]

What difference does it make who delivered the speech? You actually think that has any significance to what is being discussed.

 

You think we'd suffer and not prosper outside the EU, so you believe our success and prosperity is reliant on the EU, that shows very little faith to me.

What a load of tosh, you will be playing the patriotic card next. Why is that those against the EU always question / accuse those who are pro EU of having no faith , being unpatriotic, blah blah blah. Such simplistic accusations only illustrate the inanity of the anti argument and the detachment the anti EU rabble have from the reality of a globalised world that is sans British Empire.

[Torres]

Almost every other industrialised country is seeking to join or form a trading bloc - NAFTA, AFTA, SAFTA, MERCOSUR, EU but plucky Britain can go it alone with a little faith.

 

Of course we can, we've the greatest Navy in the world! If anyone gives us any trouble, we'll just send in the gunships.

[Sour Mash]

What a load of tosh, you will be playing the patriotic card next. Why is that those against the EU always question / accuse those who are pro EU of having no faith , being unpatriotic, blah blah blah. Such simplistic accusations only illustrate the inanity of the anti argument and the detachment the anti EU rabble have from the reality of a globalised world that is sans British Empire.

Don't get upset, I think you're entitled to your view that we rely on the EU for our success and prosperity, I just happen to disagree with it, not a big deal.

[Sour Mash]

So which trading bloc do you think we should be in?

We can enter into any number of trade agreements, including the EU itself. Or do you think the French and Germans would walk away from as big an export market as the UK?

[buctootim]

Don't get upset, I think you're entitled to your view that we rely on the EU for our success and prosperity, I just happen to disagree with it, not a big deal.

 

 

Your issue (Im assuming) is that you want economic co-operation but not the political union. I understand that. The problem is that that isnt on offer.

 

The EU is as members club. No club is going to offer a better package to an associate than to its members - hence why Norway, Switzerland etc still have to accept freedom of movement of people (amongst many other things) as the price for trading with the EU. 31 countries have accepted that and they arent going to change for Britain.

 

My view is that the only two options available to us are as a member of the EU, or as an associate like Switzerland with all the same obligations but no vote and influence. We might wish there was a third pick and mix option - take the bits you like, leave the bits you dont - but there aint.

[buctootim]

We can enter into any number of trade agreements, including the EU itself. Or do you think the French and Germans would walk away from as big an export market as the UK?

 

No the EU wont walk away - they will offer the same terms as Norway and Switzerland and Iceland got. As I said above its a members club. They arent going to offer associates a better deal than members because doing so would trigger a clamour of me too. At some stage the 'ever closer union' will stop because a majority of the 27 will say 'enough'. That majority isnt there yet.

[Sour Mash]

Your issue (Im assuming) is that you want economic co-operation but not the political union. I understand that. The problem is that that isnt on offer.

 

The EU is as members club. No club is going to offer a better package to an associate than to its members - hence why Norway, Switzerland etc still have to accept freedom of movement of people (amongst many other things) as the price for trading with the EU. 31 countries have accepted that and they arent going to change for Britain.

 

My view is that the only two options available to us are as a member of the EU, or as an associate like Switzerland with all the same obligations but no vote and influence. We might wish there was a third pick and mix option - take the bits you like, leave the bits you dont - but there aint.

So what you are saying is you think the EU would turn its back on what of its biggest, most important export markets?

[buctootim]

No. Im saying the terms of the deal will favour the 26 countries, not the one.