EU referendum

[CB Fry]

You never get to vote for EU commissioners full-stop.

There are lots of important governmental roles in this country that no one gets to vote on full stop.

[Wade Garrett]

Cameron, his ministers and the MEPs.

 

None of who make a blind bit of difference.

[aintforever]

We haven't controlled our borders for decades and most of our current immigration comes from outside the EU anyway. We stopped recording who came in and who left back in the early 1960s. Then there is the question of what to do with those EU citizens who are already here. Most of those who would come are already here.

 

Doesn't mean we can't control it in the future, immigration has never been as high as it has been recently thanks to the EU migration so you are clearly talking nonsense.

 

500,000 more people every year is rediculous. It could be more next year, we havn't got a clue and are completely powerless to do anything about it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Doesn't mean we can't control it in the future, immigration has never been as high as it has been recently thanks to the EU migration so you are clearly talking nonsense.

 

500,000 more people every year is rediculous. It could be more next year, we havn't got a clue and are completely powerless to do anything about it.

 

I agree, it is absolutely ridiculous and if I thought that leaving the EU would stop it then I would be leading the OUT campaign despite the enormous damage that it would do to our trade.

 

This is one of many papers on migration to the UK, page 12 gives some numbers:

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf

 

More than 50% are non EU and nobody is doing anything to restrict that at the moment so I don't see why it would be any different outside the EU. As I said before, all the EU citizens who are already here are unlikely to leave, how would they be removed? In recent years some 200,000 people a year have been granted British Citizenship, they will probably not have been EU nationals because they don't need to. An EU national can only come here if they are working, studying or self-sufficient.

[Orange]

How is it undemocratic?

 

In two different ways.

Firstly structurally. MEPs have no power in putting forward legislation. It's effectively a charade of a chamber. Everything put forward comes from the unelected commission (heavily influenced by lobbyists) and if MEPs don't vote in the way the commission want they just bore them into submission by making them vote on the issue again. Also if you look into how some of the commission got to their posts, Cathy Ashton in particular springs to mind, i don't know how anyone could defend it. She was foreign minister of Europe for f*cks sake all through her connections and loyalty to the project.

 

The other main reason why its undemocratic is just look at the EU's history. It's effectively ignored democratic referendums time and time again, the Dutch, French, Irish etc. I forget which one it was after but Martin Schultz famously said 'we must not bow to populism', which pretty much sums up their mentality. They are ideologically hell bent on their project and do not care about the wishes of voters.

 

Although i disagree with it, there is an argument for the economic benefits/influence in the world of being in the EU, but I do not understand at all how an argument can be made that the EU is a democratic/accountable institution.

[Orange]

Doesn't mean we can't control it in the future, immigration has never been as high as it has been recently thanks to the EU migration so you are clearly talking nonsense.

 

500,000 more people every year is rediculous. It could be more next year, we havn't got a clue and are completely powerless to do anything about it.

 

Exactly.

 

People say 'we've always had immigration etc', being completely blind to the fact we have never had it anywhere near the scale we see today.

 

Like you said as well, it's madness for a government to have no control over numbers year on year, because how on earth are you meant to plan infrastructure/schools/healthcare etc if we have no idea?

 

Now is the time we have to decide if we're happy to add over 300,000 every year to our population, and really think long term, whether packing us in to this small island even more densely is going to improve people's standard of living in the long run.

[JRM]

I agree, it is absolutely ridiculous and if I thought that leaving the EU would stop it then I would be leading the OUT campaign despite the enormous damage that it would do to our trade.

 

This is one of many papers on migration to the UK, page 12 gives some numbers:

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf

 

More than 50% are non EU and nobody is doing anything to restrict that at the moment so I don't see why it would be any different outside the EU. As I said before, all the EU citizens who are already here are unlikely to leave, how would they be removed? In recent years some 200,000 people a year have been granted British Citizenship, they will probably not have been EU nationals because they don't need to. An EU national can only come here if they are working, studying or self-sufficient.

 

This Gentleman is spot on and clearly knows his stuff. Thanks for helping to educate some on here, I think the general population are starting to realise this isn't just an argument about immigration but so much more than that.

 

The level on unaccountable spending in the EU is unreal

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html

[JRM]

This Gentleman is spot on and clearly knows his stuff. Thanks for helping to educate some on here, I think the general population are starting to realise this isn't just an argument about immigration but so much more than that.

 

The level on unaccountable spending in the EU is unreal

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html

 

That's embarrassing I meant to quote "Orange" post above not Grandads

[ecuk268]

Most of these ex-pats are comfortably off and in good health anyway.

 

Can you supply evidence of this?

[Whitey Grandad]

That's embarrassing I meant to quote "Orange" post above not Grandads

 

I must admit I did raise an eyebrow.

[Johnny Bognor]

Undecided.

 

On the one hand, there are tangible benefits to coming out, on the other "the better the devil you know"

[aintforever]

I agree, it is absolutely ridiculous and if I thought that leaving the EU would stop it then I would be leading the OUT campaign despite the enormous damage that it would do to our trade.

 

This is one of many papers on migration to the UK, page 12 gives some numbers:

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf

 

More than 50% are non EU and nobody is doing anything to restrict that at the moment so I don't see why it would be any different outside the EU. As I said before, all the EU citizens who are already here are unlikely to leave, how would they be removed? In recent years some 200,000 people a year have been granted British Citizenship, they will probably not have been EU nationals because they don't need to. An EU national can only come here if they are working, studying or self-sufficient.

 

Again, I'm not sure why what we have done historically is important, immigration has never been at the levels it is today so there has never been a serious need to control it until now. And the only way to have ANY sort of control is to leave the EU.

 

If we were building the equivalent housing, schools and hospitals for the extra 3-500,000 that turn up every year I wouldn't have a problem but we are making cuts in services and still adding large and unpredictable amounts of new people every year - it's bonkers.

[Wes Tender]

I would vote to leave, for many reasons already covered by Orange, Lord Duckhunter, Aintforever in particular.

 

We originally joined a Common Market and have been denied a referendum on the subsequent Treaties that changed it into a federal Europe, with the resultant loss of sovereignty.

 

The entire process has been hugely undemocratic and the pro-European factions in our government deserve a good kicking as a result.

 

As is to be expected, there are the usual mutterings about how our trade will be devastated, how matters like immigration will continue unabated anyway, that British passport holders who have moved abroad will somehow be denied the rights of their citizenship if they have to return.

 

During the campaign to leave, this scaremongering needs to be tackled head-on and debunked for the nonsense that it is.

 

Those European companies will not wish to lose any of the trade they currently have with us and we can justifiably demand reciprocal trade agreements. If trade tariffs are imposed on us, we can reciprocate. That will be in nobody's interest, so I doubt it will happen. We will quickly establish profitable trading links with the rest of the World, so the longer term trade prospects will be improved.

 

Immigration is the main issue of concern for many in the "leave" camp and the obligation to allow unrestricted immigration from the EU zone on top of any moral obligation to accept immigrants from other parts of the World, notably the Middle East, is unsustainable to our infrastructure. Leaving would enable us to pick and choose who we allowed in on a points-based system.

 

It will be refreshing once more to have control of our own legal system with laws passed by our democratically elected parliament not being subjugated to the European Court of Law.

 

I would be happy to remain in Europe on the basis of the original Treaty of Rome but as there is no chance at all of returning to that, the best chance of obtaining serious concessions on the most contentious issues of our membership would be to vote to leave. If the EU was inflexible after that, then we will go our separate way.

[Whitey Grandad]

I would vote to leave, for many reasons already covered by Orange, Lord Duckhunter, Aintforever in particular.

 

We originally joined a Common Market and have been denied a referendum on the subsequent Treaties that changed it into a federal Europe, with the resultant loss of sovereignty.

 

The entire process has been hugely undemocratic and the pro-European factions in our government deserve a good kicking as a result.

 

As is to be expected, there are the usual mutterings about how our trade will be devastated, how matters like immigration will continue unabated anyway, that British passport holders who have moved abroad will somehow be denied the rights of their citizenship if they have to return.

 

During the campaign to leave, this scaremongering needs to be tackled head-on and debunked for the nonsense that it is.

 

Those European companies will not wish to lose any of the trade they currently have with us and we can justifiably demand reciprocal trade agreements. If trade tariffs are imposed on us, we can reciprocate. That will be in nobody's interest, so I doubt it will happen. We will quickly establish profitable trading links with the rest of the World, so the longer term trade prospects will be improved.

 

Immigration is the main issue of concern for many in the "leave" camp and the obligation to allow unrestricted immigration from the EU zone on top of any moral obligation to accept immigrants from other parts of the World, notably the Middle East, is unsustainable to our infrastructure. Leaving would enable us to pick and choose who we allowed in on a points-based system.

 

It will be refreshing once more to have control of our own legal system with laws passed by our democratically elected parliament not being subjugated to the European Court of Law.

 

I would be happy to remain in Europe on the basis of the original Treaty of Rome but as there is no chance at all of returning to that, the best chance of obtaining serious concessions on the most contentious issues of our membership would be to vote to leave. If the EU was inflexible after that, then we will go our separate way.

 

Edit:

 

There is a European Court of Justice and a European Court of Human Rights, which is different.

Edited 12 October, 2015 by Whitey Grandad

[buctootim]

As is to be expected, there are the usual mutterings about how our trade will be devastated, how matters like immigration will continue unabated anyway, that British passport holders who have moved abroad will somehow be denied the rights of their citizenship if they have to return.

 

During the campaign to leave, this scaremongering needs to be tackled head-on and debunked for the nonsense that it is.

 

Those European companies will not wish to lose any of the trade they currently have with us and we can justifiably demand reciprocal trade agreements. If trade tariffs are imposed on us, we can reciprocate. That will be in nobody's interest, so I doubt it will happen. We will quickly establish profitable trading links with the rest of the World, so the longer term trade prospects will be improved.

 

Immigration is the main issue of concern for many in the "leave" camp and the obligation to allow unrestricted immigration from the EU zone on top of any moral obligation to accept immigrants from other parts of the World, notably the Middle East, is unsustainable to our infrastructure. Leaving would enable us to pick and choose who we allowed in on a points-based system.

 

It will be refreshing once more to have control of our own legal system with laws passed by our democratically elected parliament not being subjugated to the European Court of Law.

 

I would be happy to remain in Europe on the basis of the original Treaty of Rome but as there is no chance at all of returning to that, the best chance of obtaining serious concessions on the most contentious issues of our membership would be to vote to leave. If the EU was inflexible after that, then we will go our separate way.

We'd end up with the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. ie having to comply with EU legislation, still have open doors to EU citizens so no control over immigration but without a vote or influence. We would also be outside the EU / US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which will govern trade with America - vulnerable to tariffs as we sell more to them than they sell to us. Oh and before you post up the "ahh but the EU export more to us than they import from UK so they need us and we'll get a better deal" hoary old argument, the same is true of Switzerland, except more so. They got zilch.

Edited 12 October, 2015 by buctootim

[moonraker]

Pathetic.

 

Pitiful.

[moonraker]

There are lots of important governmental roles in this country that no one gets to vote on full stop.

Like that great piece of British Heritage the House of Lords!

[moonraker]

Doesn't mean we can't control it in the future, immigration has never been as high as it has been recently thanks to the EU migration so you are clearly talking nonsense.

 

500,000 more people every year is rediculous. It could be more next year, we havn't got a clue and are completely powerless to do anything about it.

 

Net migration is circa 300000 not 500000. We have certainly absorbed similar % increases in the past, the Huguenots (just an example) in the 17th century swelled the population by circa 0.84%. Today 300000 (in exceptional circumstances) is a little over 0.4% so we are debating an increase of less than half of 1%, in a country with a near neutral birth rate the UK population. It is also worth noting that mass migration are in the vast majority of cases followed by a reversal with large numbers returning whence they came. During the French revolution 500000 fled France more 50% returned.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We'd end up with the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. ie having to comply with EU legislation, still have open doors to EU citizens so no control over immigration but without a vote or influence. We would also be outside the EU / US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which will govern trade with the Americas - vulnerable to tariffs as we sell more to them than they sell to us. Oh and before you post up the "ahh but the EU export more to us than they import from UK so they need us" hoary old argument, the same is true of Switzerland, except far more so.

 

We are not Switzerland and we are not Norway, why do people try and claim that by leaving we will be? We can have our own bespoke trade agreement with the EU .

 

In one post you claim that to be out of the EU but trade with them we will have no control on immigration , and then go on to add a piece about trade with America . If this nonsense about immigration and trade is true, then this must mean to trade with the EU the USA have " no control over immigration " . This is clearly nonsense , the USA will trade with the EU , without giving up its immigration control, without accepting free movement of EU citizens and without giving up some if it sovereignty. Are you seriously trying to claim that Australia, Canada, USA, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand have all given up control of their immigration to the EU ?If they can trade with the EU and remain out of it, I'm damn sure we can.

 

We can do a separate trade deal with the USA without having Merkal holding our hands .

[buctootim]

We are not Switzerland and we are not Norway, why do people try and claim that by leaving we will be? We can have our own bespoke trade agreement with the EU .

 

In one post you claim that to be out of the EU but trade with them we will have no control on immigration , and then go on to add a piece about trade with America . If this nonsense about immigration and trade is true, then this must mean to trade with the EU the USA have " no control over immigration " . This is clearly nonsense , the USA will trade with the EU , without giving up its immigration control, without accepting free movement of EU citizens and without giving up some if it sovereignty. Are you seriously trying to claim that Australia, Canada, USA, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand have all given up control of their immigration to the EU ?If they can trade with the EU and remain out of it, I'm damn sure we can.

 

We can do a separate trade deal with the USA without having Merkal holding our hands .

 

My post is based on real existing arrangements with real existing countries who wanted the same deal you are talking about and didn't get it. Your post is based on hope. The EU isnt going to offer non members a better deal than members get. Offering a pick and mix 'take what you want leave what you dont' deal would trigger a rush for the exit by exisiitng members and bring down the EU. Why would you be a member of the EU if you can get all the benefits and none of the disadvantages? Aint going to happen. Talking about the trade deals China and Australia have with the EU is a red herring, they arent in Europe. China is subject to large tariffs for many goods. I didnt make any comment about tying immigration to trade outside EU, I think you misunderstood.

 

The US is different. Sure we can have a bilateral trade deal with them. It will be a totally unequal negotiation though, they'd have us by the short and curlies.

1. We export more to them than we import, so we need a deal more than they do

2. What we import from them is mostly essential goods we couldnt buy elsewhere - specialist aircraft parts, drugs, arms.

3. What we sell to them, mostly cars, competes directly with their own industry

4. The US want us in the EU, they have said that many times. They arent going to help us leave with a sweetheart deal.

Edited 12 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

We are not Switzerland and we are not Norway, why do people try and claim that by leaving we will be? We can have our own bespoke trade agreement with the EU .

 

In one post you claim that to be out of the EU but trade with them we will have no control on immigration , and then go on to add a piece about trade with America . If this nonsense about immigration and trade is true, then this must mean to trade with the EU the USA have " no control over immigration " . This is clearly nonsense , the USA will trade with the EU , without giving up its immigration control, without accepting free movement of EU citizens and without giving up some if it sovereignty. Are you seriously trying to claim that Australia, Canada, USA, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand have all given up control of their immigration to the EU ?If they can trade with the EU and remain out of it, I'm damn sure we can.

 

We can do a separate trade deal with the USA without having Merkal holding our hands .

You need to remember who you're debating with here. People that are adamant the UK must be in a political union with Europe in order to be successful, a belief that we are reliant on this union for a healthy, developed economy.

[buctootim]

...

Edited 12 October, 2015 by buctootim
double post

[Wes Tender]

My post is based on real existing arrangements with real existing countries who wanted the same deal you are talking about and didn't get it. Your post is based on hope. The EU isnt going to offer non members a better deal than members get. Offering a pick and mix 'take what you want leave what you dont' deal would trigger a rush for the exit by exisiitng members and bring down the EU. Why would you be a member of the EU if you can get all the benefits and none of the disadvantages? Aint going to happen. Talking about the trade deals China and Australia have with the EU is a red herring, they arent in Europe. China is subject to large tariffs for many goods.

 

The US is different. Sure we can have a bilateral trade deal with them. It will be a totally unequal negotiation though, they'd have us by the short and curlies.

1. We export more to them than we import, so we need a deal more than they do

2. What we import from them is mostly essential goods we couldnt buy elsewhere - specialist aircraft parts, drugs, arms.

3. What we sell to them, mostly cars, competes directly with their own industry

4. The US want us in the EU, they have said that many times. They arent going to help us leave with a sweetheart deal.

Now that you have rightly had scorn poured on the notion that we would be treated by the EU like they treat Norway and Switzerland, the scare tactics move on to how there would be difficulties in arranging more reciprocal trade with America because we already export more to them than they do to us, therefore negotiations give them the whip-hand. Presumably this is like the whip-hand that we would have if we chose to leave the EU, as they have a large imbalance of trade with us, as we import far more goods from them than they do from us, so we ought to also have them by the short and curlies.

 

The goods we import from America we couldn't buy elsewhere you say, but equally those American companies are reliant on us buying those items, or the manufacturers would risk going under. There is always the possibility of course that we could manufacture those things here in the UK.

 

What we sell to them, mostly cars, does not necessarily compete with their own industry. These are luxury marques, which they do not have an equivalent for.

 

America only wants us in the EU so that they can gain a trading foothold there via us. Ford was one of the big guns telling us how we should remain in Europe and then they promptly closed their Ford Transit operation in Southampton and moved it to Turkey, so the motor industry wasn't exactly a good example for your points 3 or 4.

[solentstars]

Edit:

 

There is a European Court of Justice and a European Court of Human Rights, which is different.

has i whitey i expected most of the outers have not a clue of what they are talking about and want out into the unknown based on a whim rather than any hard facts. Edited 12 October, 2015 by solentstars

[buctootim]

the scare tactics move on to how there would be difficulties in arranging more reciprocal trade with America because we already export more to them than they do to us, therefore negotiations give them the whip-hand. Presumably this is like the whip-hand that we would have if we chose to leave the EU, as they have a large imbalance of trade with us, as we import far more goods from them than they do from us, so we ought to also have them by the short and curlies.

 

The goods we import from America we couldn't buy elsewhere you say, but equally those American companies are reliant on us buying those items, or the manufacturers would risk going under. There is always the possibility of course that we could manufacture those things here in the UK.

 

What we sell to them, mostly cars, does not necessarily compete with their own industry. These are luxury marques, which they do not have an equivalent for.

 

America only wants us in the EU so that they can gain a trading foothold there via us. Ford was one of the big guns telling us how we should remain in Europe and then they promptly closed their Ford Transit operation in Southampton and moved it to Turkey, so the motor industry wasn't exactly a good example for your points 3 or 4.

 

Wes I imagine you as the person who goes around offering £200,000 for £400,000 houses convinced that one of your offers will be accepted, its just a question of perserverance.

 

We will have no whip hand with the EU because they arent going to **** off 27 members to please one non member. If the EU felt inclined to make concessions to Britain they would do that at the stage of in / out negotiations in an attempt to stop a major member leaving and all the implications that would have. The idea that they would instead decide to make special concessions after the UK has left is risible.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I didnt make any comment about tying immigration to trade outside EU, I think you misunderstood.

 

.

 

Nonsense , you wrote " still have open doors to EU citizens so no control over immigration but without a vote or influence. " . If that's not linking immigration to trade I don't know what is . Perhaps you could explain what you meant if I've " misunderstood"

[solentstars]

Now that you have rightly had scorn poured on the notion that we would be treated by the EU like they treat Norway and Switzerland, the scare tactics move on to how there would be difficulties in arranging more reciprocal trade with America because we already export more to them than they do to us, therefore negotiations give them the whip-hand. Presumably this is like the whip-hand that we would have if we chose to leave the EU, as they have a large imbalance of trade with us, as we import far more goods from them than they do from us, so we ought to also have them by the short and curlies.

 

The goods we import from America we couldn't buy elsewhere you say, but equally those American companies are reliant on us buying those items, or the manufacturers would risk going under. There is always the possibility of course that we could manufacture those things here in the UK.

 

What we sell to them, mostly cars, does not necessarily compete with their own industry. These are luxury marques, which they do not have an equivalent for.

 

America only wants us in the EU so that they can gain a trading foothold there via us. Ford was one of the big guns telling us how we should remain in Europe and then they promptly closed their Ford Transit operation in Southampton and moved it to Turkey, so the motor industry wasn't exactly a good example for your points 3 or 4.

i think buctootim is based on reality and our motor industry is nearly all foreign owned, japanese american french and german owned ,which we export abroad and they could base over the eu and ford has just put major investment in bridgend for the next generation of engines and dagenham ,which they could easily base in mainland europe if we left. i just don,t understand the negative mentality of the out campaign. Edited 12 October, 2015 by solentstars

[solentstars]

Wes I imagine you as the person who goes around offering £200,000 for £400,000 houses convinced that one of your offers will be accepted, its just a question of perserverance.

 

We will have no whip hand with the EU because they arent going to **** off 27 members to please one non member. If the EU felt inclined to make concessions to Britain they would do that at the stage of in / out negotiations in an attempt to stop a major member leaving and all the implications that would have. The idea that they would instead decide to make special concessions after the UK has left is risible.

agree and we already have major opt outs and are not in the eurozone shows what you can acheive when you work with other countrys in the eu .

[Batman]

i think buctootim is based on reality and our motor industry is nearly all foreign owned, japanese american french and german owned ,which we export abroad and they could base over the eu and ford has just put major investment in bridgend for the next generation of engines and dagenham ,which they could easily base in mainland europe if we left. i just don,t understand the negative mentality of the out campaign.

 

both sides have plenty of that

[Colinjb]

both sides have plenty of that

 

The nature of politics these days, attack the opposition ahead of praising your own virtues.

[Sour Mash]

i think buctootim is based on reality and our motor industry is nearly all foreign owned, japanese american french and german owned ,which we export abroad and they could base over the eu and ford has just put major investment in bridgend for the next generation of engines and dagenham ,which they could easily base in mainland europe if we left. i just don,t understand the negative mentality of the out campaign.

Why would they easily move those plants to the EU if we leave?

[Wes Tender]

has i whitey i expected most of the outers have not a clue of what they are talking about and want out into the unknown based on a whim rather than any hard facts.

 

Law = justice. If you wish to debate why English Laws enacted by our democratically elected Parliament should be subservient to the legal system of the EU, then please take it that I meant the European Court of Justice, not the European Court of Human Rights.

 

But I would be grateful if you did respond that you attempt to do so using better English.

[Sour Mash]

has i whitey i expected most of the outers have not a clue of what they are talking about and want out into the unknown based on a whim rather than any hard facts.

 

put alot of jobs at stake.

 

i just don,t understand the negative mentality of the out campaign.

And you're just an overwhelming, non-stop flow of positivity yourself.....

[Wes Tender]

Wes I imagine you as the person who goes around offering £200,000 for £400,000 houses convinced that one of your offers will be accepted, its just a question of perserverance.

 

We will have no whip hand with the EU because they arent going to **** off 27 members to please one non member. If the EU felt inclined to make concessions to Britain they would do that at the stage of in / out negotiations in an attempt to stop a major member leaving and all the implications that would have. The idea that they would instead decide to make special concessions after the UK has left is risible.

 

Imagine what you like, if you wish to use a bizarre analogy like that with absolutely no idea of how I went about buying the four houses that I have owned in my adult life, none of which was purchased at half price unfortunately.

 

What is risible and naive, is the notion that the EU would grant us concessions based on the position that we might leave if we were unhappy with them, when there are those in the "stay" camp spouting forth the sort of rubbish that you do and where the likes of Cameron wish us to stay in.

 

Your position reminds me of Jeremy Corbyn who wouldn't push the nuclear button if he was PM. We will only gain the concessions we seek if it appears that the "leave" camp could command a majority in a referendum. Failing that, the major change we will have achieved on leaving is to rid ourselves of all the federal aspects of the successive treaties that the electorate did not vote for. As for trade, once we have left it will be negotiated as I said on the basis that the major European Countries will not wish to lose their exports to us and that any tariff reprisals on our trade with Europe would also be imposed by us on them to nobody's advantage.

 

And one of the first things that we ought to do on leaving, is increase our trade with Norway and Switzerland.

[solentstars]

Why would they easily move those plants to the EU if we leave?

oh dear,are you really that innocent ,i thought you knew what you were voting out for and had the answers.

[buctootim]

Nonsense , you wrote " still have open doors to EU citizens so no control over immigration but without a vote or influence. " . If that's not linking immigration to trade I don't know what is . Perhaps you could explain what you meant if I've " misunderstood"

In the part about Norway and Switzerland I referred to the fact they have no control over EU migration. They dont. They have to abide by the EU agreements and legislation without having a vote. You then went on to pretend I'd said UK trade negotiations with the US would also have to include immigration, which is clearly nonsense and I didnt say it.

Edited 12 October, 2015 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

oh dear,are you really that innocent ,i thought you knew what you were voting out for and had the answers.

 

So you don't know, fair enough.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In the part about Norway and Switzerland I referred to the fact they have no control over EU migration. They dont. They have to abide by the EU agreements and legislation without having a vote. You then went on to pretend I'd said UK trade negotiations with the US would also have to include immigration, which is clearly nonsense and I didnt say it.

 

You said that we would have to give up control of our borders to trade with the EU, and you cited Norway and Switzerland as examples . The logical conclusion from that is that trade and immigration are linked . I merely commented that to follow your nonsense to its conclusion then the USA must lose control of its borers to trade with the EU . You've now cleared this up by saying that it doesn't , so where does this statement leave your assertion that we need to give control of our borders to the EU to trade with them .

 

It can only be one of 3 things . You believe that the EU will make us accept free movement but not other countries , you lied to try and re- enforce your point, or you were so busy tapping away and foaming at the mouth at us "Little Englanders " that you lost all sense of reason and perspective and made a mistake .

 

So to clear it up once and for all , do you believe that if we leave the EU we will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens to be able to trade with them ?

[CB Fry]

You said that we would have to give up control of our borders to trade with the EU, and you cited Norway and Switzerland as examples . The logical conclusion from that is that trade and immigration are linked . I merely commented that to follow your nonsense to its conclusion then the USA must lose control of its borers to trade with the EU . You've now cleared this up by saying that it doesn't , so where does this statement leave your assertion that we need to give control of our borders to the EU to trade with them .

 

It can only be one of 3 things . You believe that the EU will make us accept free movement but not other countries , you lied to try and re- enforce your point, or you were so busy tapping away and foaming at the mouth at us "Little Englanders " that you lost all sense of reason and perspective and made a mistake .

 

So to clear it up once and for all , do you believe that if we leave the EU we will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens to be able to trade with them ?

I think you might be the one foaming.

 

Pretty obvious what Tim was saying, not sure you're falling about pretending to misunderstand it. Good for you.

 

Anyway, the good news is Wes Tender has told us all we'll have the "whip hand" versus the EU once we're out, so that's okay then. The whip hand.

[buctootim]

You said that we would have to give up control of our borders to trade with the EU, and you cited Norway and Switzerland as examples . The logical conclusion from that is that trade and immigration are linked . I merely commented that to follow your nonsense to its conclusion then the USA must lose control of its borers to trade with the EU . You've now cleared this up by saying that it doesn't , so where does this statement leave your assertion that we need to give control of our borders to the EU to trade with them .

 

It can only be one of 3 things . You believe that the EU will make us accept free movement but not other countries , you lied to try and re- enforce your point, or you were so busy tapping away and foaming at the mouth at us "Little Englanders " that you lost all sense of reason and perspective and made a mistake .

 

So to clear it up once and for all , do you believe that if we leave the EU we will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens to be able to trade with them ?

 

Kin ell its really not difficult. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have to accept free movement of labour as part of their agreements with the EU. Britain would have to do the same, thereby removing the main argument for leaving. You can pretend that Britain wouldnt be treated like these other European countries but instead would be treated as if we were on a different continent, but that just makes you look silly.

http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/swiss-told-to-vote-again-on-free-movement-except-this-time-the-stakes-are-higher/

[CB Fry]

Kin ell its really not difficult. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have to accept free movement of labour as part of their agreements with the EU. Britain would have to do the same, thereby removing the main argument for leaving. You can pretend that Britain wouldnt be treated like these other European countries but instead would be treated as if we were on a different continent, but that just makes you look silly.

http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/swiss-told-to-vote-again-on-free-movement-except-this-time-the-stakes-are-higher/

We'd have the whip hand, Tim. The whip hand I tells ya.

[buctootim]

We'd have the whip hand, Tim. The whip hand I tells ya.

 

Im pretty sure we'd be able to bully the US too.

[aintforever]

Kin ell its really not difficult. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have to accept free movement of labour as part of their agreements with the EU. Britain would have to do the same, thereby removing the main argument for leaving. You can pretend that Britain wouldnt be treated like these other European countries but instead would be treated as if we were on a different continent, but that just makes you look silly.

http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/swiss-told-to-vote-again-on-free-movement-except-this-time-the-stakes-are-higher/

 

Big difference is the UK's economy is the 5th largest in the world.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Kin ell its really not difficult. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have to accept free movement of labour as part of their agreements with the EU. Britain would have to do the same, thereby removing the main argument for leaving. You can pretend that Britain wouldnt be treated like these other European countries but instead would be treated as if we were on a different continent, but that just makes you look silly.

 

Why would we have to ?

 

If other countries accept it as part of " their agreement " why on earth does this mean we must . Does Russia or Turkey

[CB Fry]

Im pretty sure we'd be able to bully the US too.

Well, there is this.

 

 

America only wants us in the EU so that they can gain a trading foothold there via us. .

 

Once we're not the translator/best friend of the US in Europe - I imagine the US has never had any dealings with Germany without us as matchmaker - then those yanks will be crawling to us. Crawling.

[bridge too far]

Well, there is this.

 

 

 

Once we're not the translator/best friend of the US in Europe - I imagine the US has never had any dealings with Germany without us as matchmaker - then those yanks will be crawling to us. Crawling.

 

Won't the much vaunted TTIP agreement ensure that the US gets what it wants with regard to Europe?

[Sour Mash]

Kin ell its really not difficult. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have to accept free movement of labour as part of their agreements with the EU. Britain would have to do the same, thereby removing the main argument for leaving. You can pretend that Britain wouldnt be treated like these other European countries but instead would be treated as if we were on a different continent, but that just makes you look silly.

http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/swiss-told-to-vote-again-on-free-movement-except-this-time-the-stakes-are-higher/

 

Why would we have to do the same? Different countries, different process, you're not comparing like with like, unless they've all just voted to leave the EU.

[buctootim]

Big difference is the UK's economy is the 5th largest in the world.

 

Big difference is Switzerland has a bigger trade deficit with the EU than the UK does. Its helped them this much. 0.

[buctootim]

Why would we have to do the same? Different countries, different process, you're not comparing like with like, unless they've all just voted to leave the EU.

 

the EU has steadfastly refused to negotiate with Bern, insisting that free movement is part of a package deal also granting Switzerland preferential access to the single market,

[View From The Top]

Big difference is the UK's economy is the 5th largest in the world.

 

Not really. The EU aren't going to let us walk away and then carry on as normal. If they tell us free movement of people is the price of the free movement of trade and goods do you think our lords and masters will say no and risk the likes of Toyota and Nissan moving their plants to countries in the EU and inward investment drying up?

 

In the Daily Mail world it may seem like being out is the answer to everything. It's clearly not going to be.