| The Comments |
Congratulations to the Swiss people who regected in a referendum vote to automatically deport foreign immigrants who are convicted of a crime. Why?
If the vote had been approved Switzerland would be in trouble with the EU and possibly ejected from the EEA treaty. That would in turn severely damage the Swiss economy.
Everyone needs the EU like it or not.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
Even North Korea has to follow rules that are designed externally.
0
Like
|
GB45, if you read my posts on the tory whip again you will see that I agree with you. Cameron has stopped ministers who support the 'out's' from doing their jobs properly, he might as well withdraw the whip if he doesn't trust them.
_______________________
I'm Spartacus, well why not?
0
Like
|
Sorry Hep, I'm not too sure who suggested withdrawing the tory whip now but I wasn't getting at you...honestly! I just find it strange in a free vote, people were suggesting all sorts of punishments for the outs.
0
Like
|
I have read it will take two years to sort out the status of British retirees living in the EU and other pressing matters. Then ten years to unravel trade agreements with the EU and make new ones with none EU countries. During that time the uncertainty and wrangling will damage the UK economy and jobs.
Now you can either decide that is scaremongering or an accurate prediction of the realities involved. Not every comment of the consequences of leaving the EU is scaremongering. Choices always have consequences. Voters need to consider that carefully.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
In reply to your comment MickyFin:
Has there been a precedent set that proves the '10 years to unravel trade agreements with the EU', if there is 'concrete proof' then you have made up my mind and I will definately vote to 'stay in'.
If this has happened in the past then this would be 'almost fact' and would certainly help me with my decsision.
I am not sure that a prediction can be called accurate (lol).
0
Like
|
Spot on Mickyfinn.
The UK can survive not being in the EU. But. For the next four months the uncertainty of the vote is going to have the consequences that go with uncertainty, these will be mainly financial.
Following the vote there will be unheaval if we vote 'out'. Scotland will call for a separation referendum, they ahve already stated as such. Short of beign dictatorial I don't know how it is possible to not allow this.
It will take at least a year for the government to trigger the clause that gets the UK out of the EU. Then the two year separation process will commence. Following that, 120 agreements will need to be considered and then negotiated with the EU. Plus our own laws will need to be revised, rewritten, debated etc.
The administration costs of the above will run to a very high sum. I have not heard any numbers yet but it will be large. I would expect the issue of non-EU migration to become a bigger issue. I cannot see the upside for a case to leave.
0
Like
|
'Of the entire Labour Party only six MP's are in the 'out' camp.'
But labour have a leader who has been anti EU all his political life but is now for 'stay in' ?
0
Like
|
BigAl,
the closest precedent we can use for comparison is Greenland leaving the EEC. The EEC was a looser union and Greenland agreed to be bound by EU Treaties. It took five years to negotiate
0
Like
|
The administration costs of the above will run to a very high sum.
Why?
I cannot see the upside for a case to leave.
Regain our democracy.
Retain our £51M per day (I know we get £11M back on paper but we would get to choose how this is spent) to spend on hospitals or defence or tax reduction or debt reduction.
Free our industry of damaging EU rules.
Control our own borders.
Get rid of a tier of politicians and the EU commission.
Freedom to trade with the commonwealth and rest of the world (much cheaper food at international prices).
Regeneration of our fishing industry.
Freedom from the damaging CAP.
Or simply pride in our past and hope for the future.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 29/02/2016.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 29/02/2016.
1
Like
|
Has there been a precedent set that proves the '10 years to unravel trade agreements with the EU
Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1983. It officially left in 1985. It was not until 1992 that trade agreements were finalised and they were mostly represented by Denmark.
Greenland accounted for a very small part of the EU import/export budget and mainly keeps its agreements due to being an overseas territory of Denmark which retains EU membership.
(Above from parliamentary briefing paper Commons Library and confirmed by europa).
Now, if it took 9 years (or 7 years after officially leaving) for a country that still maintains ties with the EU through its mother country and with a relatively small budget, how long do you think it will take for UK to do it? The dual tax agreements, the trade tariff agreements, agreement on visa requirements or not, corporation tax for what will be foreign companies, reciprocal health agreements and hundreds more different agreements. Also remember there were far fewer EEC countries back in 1983 and even Spain and Portugal hadn't joined then.
After some experience with government departments, it will probably take the first 2 years for our civil servants (who aren't exactly renowned for their negotiating skills) simply to get an agenda produced.
And what about UK itself? Many EU directives have been passed into UK law. Will these remain on the books with no further action or will they have to be re-established and voted on again in Westminster? It could tie up parliamentary proceedings for years. What about the de-regulation of airlines allowing any EU country to start or end flights from any other EU country? That's an EU ruling pertaining to EU countries. Remember, Ryanair couldn't fly from UK airports to Spain and, prior to that ruling in 1997, they could only fly from or to airports in Ireland. It would be applicable to other airlines like Air Berlin for example. And the deregulation of telecomms. This year roaming charges will be abolished in EU countries. Would it apply to UK if it is no longer a member country? Your bank savings are guaranteed up to €100,000 under an EU ruling. And we'd still be a part of the ECHR after cessation unless we withdraw from a court we were one of the prime movers in setting up.
In the 2 years from the referendum voting out to the full cessation of membership then the UK must still abide by EU rulings but will not be allowed any decision making in the EU (All contained in Clause 50 or the Lisbon treaty).
Don't really think it's going to be as easy as some of the Brexit crowd are making out.
0
Like
|
Why should we want to root out and change all the laws that came from the EU. They would get superceded in the normal course of events.
We accepted a massive amount of legislation when we entered but hardly noticed it until industry started complaining and our fishermen went out of business.
Of course canny individuals would start to ignor some EU based legislation as it would hardly be likely to be enforced. But then they do that in countries like France and Italy anyway.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 29/02/2016.
0
Like
|
Under general international law, ‘executed’ rights are protected
Generally speaking, withdrawing from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other, but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.
Rights and statuses created under a treaty owe their origin to the treaty, those that have already been executed and had their effect before withdrawal "have acquired an existence independent of it; the termination cannot touch them". Most rights, in these circumstances, would be ‘protected’ by the "well-recognised principle of respect for acquired [vested] rights". This applies to rights acquired by the states parties and by their nationals.
The reach of EU law is huge, and could not be repealed overnight – not least because all UK law (not simply implementing legislation) currently has to be interpreted in the light of EU law where it is touched by it. Would the UK courts to go back to some pre-1972 meaning of UK law, or continue to look at EU law to interpret British law?
0
Like
|
"Retain our £51M per day (I know we get £11M back on paper but we would get to choose how this is spent) to spend on hospitals or defence or tax reduction or debt reduction."
There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership, or equivalently, the costs and benefits of withdrawal. Framing the aggregate impact in terms of a single number, or even irrefutably demonstrating that the net effects are positive or negative, is a formidably difficult exercise. This is partly because many of the costs and benefits are, in certain respects, subjective, diffuse or intangible; and partly because a host of assumptions must be made about the terms on which the UK would depart the EU, and how the Government would fill the policy vacuum left in areas where the EU currently has competence. Any estimate of the effects of withdrawal will be highly sensitive to such assumptions, and can thus be embedded with varying degrees of optimism. This perhaps helps to explain why the wide range of estimates from the EU cost-benefit ‘literature’ can appear influenced by the prior convictions of those conducting the analysis.
0
Like
|
"Freedom from the damaging CAP."
Whether or not the UK would benefit economically from being outside the EU, withdrawal would have significant impacts on certain sectors (e.g. farming, which currently receives subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy) and in certain areas (e.g. west Wales, which is currently eligible for the highest level of regional funding from the EU budget). How the UK Government of the day filled the gaps in economic policy left by withdrawal from the EU would have an important bearing on its consequences.
0
Like
|
"Free our industry of damaging EU rules."
Unless you are going to establish separate bi-lateral trade agreements with every nation that trades in or out of the EU the UK will find itself oblidged to conform to EU trade rules. You cannot be a member of the EEC or the EFTA without accepting those rules.
"Freedom to trade with the commonwealth and rest of the world (much cheaper food at international prices)."
Umm, no as members of the WTO we have to comply with MFN status pricing. Being a EU member gives us exemptions from some of those rules. Under WTO you can't cut a pricing deal with one nation and not offer it to all.
0
Like
|
This is very frustrating that so little is being discussed on this thread about reform of the EU and the processes and realities associated with HOW this can be achieved if we remain "in"..
Mickeyfinn identified his "hopes" for reform which in part included greater accountability of the EU Commission to the "electorates", but how could this ever be achieved under the current system?
How can reform associated with inefficiencies re the CAP be accommodated given the status quo?
How can the EU make provision for greater protection of citizens rights when it comes to deterring abuse, as witnessed by all too many with regard to the Rule of Law and timely and consistent justice in Spain, adherence to existing law, Banking regulation and compliance, etc etc..... The EU has been impotent to deter ongoing abuse and stamp their mark with regard to any form of "moral authority".
Please let's have some details as to how this can be realistically accomplished by those so eloquent and knowledgeable with their "facts" relating to remaining "in" the EU.
What are your views on the ALTER-EU campaign group? Are you aware of any other credible organisations who are focusing on managing reform of the EU? Are you all equally committed to gaining reform and if so, why are you not discussing this "need" in detail to encourage those who are disillusioned in this regard?
This message was last edited by ads on 29/02/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 29/02/2016.
0
Like
|
"Regeneration of our fishing industry."
It is widely accepted that the CFP has failed to effectively manage fish stocks. While changes to the policy have led to some improvements in certain fish stocks in recent years, around 30% of EU commercial stocks are overfished to the extent that their populations may never recover. This is compounded by the fishing of undersized specimens: 93% of the cod in the North Sea are fished before they can breed. Overfishing continues despite large reductions in landings.
In addition to poor fish stocks, the policy has also failed to reform the fishing industry. Most fishing fleets in the EU run losses or return low profits. These problems are related to chronic overcapacity in the sector. CFP programmes to reduce fleet capacity have only achieved reductions in capacity of about 2% per year, even though technological improvements to boats have translated to a 2-4% increase in fishing effort per year. As a result there has been little change in overall fishing capacity. Fishing effort remains two to three times the sustainable level. The policy has failed to deliver a sustainable fishing industry for a number of reasons. Political pressures have led Member States to protect the short term interests of fishing industries over the long-term effective management of the stocks: European Ministers, including from the UK, have historically set fish quotas on average around 48% higher than the levels recommended by scientists. The policy is now facing radical reforms which aim to put it on a more sustainable footing. Reforms are likely to include a ban on the discarding of fish, enforcement of sustainable levels of fishing and more regional decision-making. While many have welcomed the reforms, others have concerns that they will not end over-fishing or permit the recovery of fish stocks within a reasonable timeframe.
The failure of the CFP has led some to suggest that fisheries management would be more effective if the UK withdrew from the EU. It is impossible to say exactly what would happen to UK fisheries without knowing the full terms and wider political impacts of an EU withdrawal. Equally, it is impossible to know how effective management would be under a reformed CFP. However, one issue that would have to be determined from the outset of withdrawal is whether the UK would allow access by foreign vessels to the UK EEZ. If so, the UK would have to maintain a very close working relationship with the EU to enable the monitoring of landings and to coordinate on wider regulation in the sector. It would also have to agree some kind of mechanism for agreeing catch limits. If the UK decided to exclude foreign vessels and assume full responsibility for fisheries in the UK EEZ, there would be a number of implications for the UK and the management of fisheries in the area:
The UK would have sole access to the fisheries resource. It has not yet been possible to calculate the potential value of this to the UK. The UK Independence Party claimed that the resource would be worth £2.5 billion per year;
The UK would have the power to determine its own rules for fishing region, without the need to negotiate with other parties (although rules would still be developed in line with international environmental agreements). Responsibility for managing fisheries would therefore rest solely with UK politicians, giving a clearer line of responsibility for fisheries decisions, although not necessarily giving better management;
UK fishermen may be excluded from areas outside the UK EEZ in which they currently have fishing rights;
There could be wider, and unpredictable, political repercussions. Many vessels from other EU countries currently have access to the UK EEZ. Excluding them from the area might have wider political repercussions. The Cod Wars, which led to violence between the UK and Iceland, indicated the strength of feeling that can be generated when fishermen are excluded from their traditional fishing grounds;
The UK would have the power to negotiate directly with third parties over the division of joint fish stocks, although there could be a number of disadvantages in this, including:
o The UK might be in a weaker negotiating position outside the EU—it would not necessarily have the backing of the whole EU to enforce fisheries agreements;
o Disputes between the UK and other European countries might be more frequent without the principles enshrined in EU treaties, particularly in light of predicted changes to fish distributions;
o The UK would have less power to influence the management of fisheries in the seas immediately adjacent to the EEZ. Given that fish migrate across large distances, this could have implications for the effective management of fish stocks within the UK EEZ.
The UK may in effect be bound by EU fish trade rules, without directly being able to influence them. The UK would have to comply with EU import conditions and certification requirements to export fishery products to the EU, while having little influence over those requirements;
• Trade barriers may form between the EU and UK if the UK was not part of the single market. That could hinder the export of fish products to the EU and have implications for the value of the fisheries.
0
Like
|
The truth is that if the UK exits the EU all existing treaty arrangements will cease and new ones will be required to be negotiated. That includes the right to reside and receive free health care in the EU for retired Brits. New negotiations will be long and protracted and the existing status of British expats will come under question.
Not the "truth" at all. Simply a guess (yet again). An alternative view is:
A right is “acquired” or “vested” if it is relied upon during the time that a treaty or law providing the right is in force and is not automatically removed or reversed once the treaty or law no longer applies.
And from the UK Constitutional Law site
international law demands that acquired rights should be respected (Arts. 65 to 72 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has written that: ‘It is an accepted rule of treaty law that the termination of a treaty … cannot per se affect or prejudice any right already definitively and finally acquired under it, or undo or reverse anything effected by any clause of an executed character in the treaty.
So it isn't the truth at all and boils down to who you actually read and listen to
Unless you think the 800 thousand or so Brits living in Spain would automatically become "illegal" immigrants then there is no basis to that assertion whatsoever. 2 million more illegal immigrants wandering through Europe even though they own property, pay taxes and support the local economies puts the lie to that.
3
Like
|
Ads, reform is a long slow process but we can't drive reform from the outside. We all recognise this. I hope that we can get reforms that help all of Europe. It feels like this is the first time the UK has gone to the table and said we need change to stay in the club and despite thinking it could not happen we have gotten the offer of some changes.
The UK should be leading the charge in Europe for reform and not shying away from it by saying we quit. Aside from a feeling of nationalism, which I can have inside the EU just as easily, I reiterate my position. I just can't see the upside of walking away.
0
Like
|