Simply not true. No matter how many times you repeat this it still doesn't make it true. Most of the rules governing international trade including financial transactions are made at a level above the EU and at that table we only have a fraction of a seat. In EFTA/EEA we would have far more direct power and influence than we currently have with the added benefit of a direct veto.
At least today you seem to be resisting the temptation to accuse everyone else of lying, but in this case you seem to completely missed the point. At the moment, the EU institutions have to act in the interests of all members, not just the Eurozone. In theory they have to do so completely impartially - the UK is, after all, a full member of the EU. Admittedly this fine sentiment might not always be matched in practice, but it is a legal requirement under the treaties, and with practical implications:
If we leave, they will be under no such obligation to consider our interests.
Even more important, as part of the renegotiation, there is a very strong chance that we will be able to strengthen this protection, as a quid pro quo for those Eurozone reforms which everyone agrees are necessary.
Obviously this is something to be watched, and whether or not progress is made on this will be one factor I'll consider in deciding how to vote. However, as I said upthread, if the alternative is the worst-of-all-worlds EEA membership, I'll certainly vote to stay in.
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Out of Touch Post the Month? I mean (just for starters), is there another Bob Crow that I've never heard of?
In terms of potential Left Wing candidates for taking part in the Out campaign there are a few members of the Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign who might be possibilities. Most prominent of these are probably John Cryer or Kelvin Hopkins.
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
But that is precisely why we should stay In. If we leave the EU, and rely on the EEA or some similar trade agreement, we've completely lost all protection against Eurozone hegemony. That's one reason why the renegotiation is so important: it gives us the chance to strengthen that protection.
Again, I take your point to a degree, but it all depends on what is now negotiated. It may be that by being in we suffer from this 'hegemony' all the more. And to be fair we do not know just what the ever closer union will be or how the eurozone will pan out. I am not against the purpose behind the negotiations. We can probably negotiate a better deal from within. But if the deal looks to have holes in it then it will become a running sore. Pardon the mixed metaphors. I believe we can stay in but it will have to work that we can operate alongside the eurozone and we are free from ever closer union. This is a big crunch that cannot be avoided one which Cameron flagged up years ago. And let's not forget that a newly weakened Labour Party might well see its socialist instincts suddenly best served by closer integration. What is good is that a conservative govt is dealing with it.
Miss C, I'd suggest reconsidering voting In just because of Farage. An In vote wouldn't deliver a single elected politician for UKIP (it would, indeed, destroy their USP). In the same way, if we vote In and end up with more integration, that will have a far greater impact than an Out on Farage.
Of course, if you weigh up the situation and still think In's the way to go, fair enough, but I'd argue against voting this way or that because you like or dislike a given politician. Farage has been an arse over his hokey-cokey resignation which wasn't, but the future direction of the UK is substantially more important.
Edited extra bit: broadly agree with all that, Mr. Tyndall. Farage mustn't be the figurehead for Out, or it'll lose by a mile.
Simply not true. No matter how many times you repeat this it still doesn't make it true. Most of the rules governing international trade including financial transactions are made at a level above the EU and at that table we only have a fraction of a seat. In EFTA/EEA we would have far more direct power and influence than we currently have with the added benefit of a direct veto.
At least today you seem to be resisting the temptation to accuse everyone else of lying, but in this case you seem to completely missed the point. At the moment, the EU institutions have to act in the interests of all members, not just the Eurozone. In theory they have to do so completely impartially - the UK is, after all, a full member of the EU. Admittedly this fine sentiment might not always be matched in practice, but it is a legal requirement under the treaties, and with practical implications:
If we leave, they will be under no such obligation to consider our interests.
Even more important, as part of the renegotiation, there is a very strong chance that we will be able to strengthen this protection, as a quid pro quo for those Eurozone reforms which everyone agrees are necessary.
Obviously this is something to be watched, and whether or not progress is made on this will be one factor I'll consider in deciding how to vote. However, as I said upthread, if the alternative is the worst-of-all-worlds EEA membership, I'll certainly vote to stay in.
A posting that completely ignores what I said about the fact that if we were a member of the EEA via EFTA we would still have direct participation in drawing up any new legislation that might affect the city and, more importantly, a veto if the final legislation truly was as bad as you fear.
It will be very difficult to persuade the disinterested to vote Out.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
The accounts of the UK have not been signed off by any firm of accountants either. Nor have those of the US, or France, or China, or India.
But, unlike the EU, they aren't required to (unless I am mistaken).
The EU accounts are verified by the court of auditors, which is not affiliated with any accounting firm, although it does use them for certain things.
1. The Out campaign need to emphasise that there is no status quo here - the EU is going full steam towards integration and becoming a single country. Do we want to be part of that or do we see ourselves as an international player in our own right, able to negotiate trade deals on our behalf with the other 80% of the world economy, that which is expanding. Also emphasise there is a difference between free movement of and a free movement of , this needs effective communication.
2. The campaigners at this stage need to be talking to their own parties. Key people have already been identified from each party that will support Out - they need to be getting themselves a profile in the coming months and pushing their arguments in the media while rebutting the '3 million jobs' scaremongering of the In campaign. It is really important that supporters of all political parties are seen to be involved at this stage.
3. The campaign has to be relentlessly positive. Don't get bogged down in EU v EFTA v EEA details - where we go afterwards will be for the people to decide in due course following consultations; the process of leaving will take a year or two, there will be elections and possibly another referendum to determine the approach to take.
4. The main figurehead for the Out campaign needs to be chosen a few months before the vote, once we know what has been negotiated (or otherwise) and who will be on the Out side - there will be senior people from all parties defecting if the negotiations are dud, much better to choose one of those to lead the national campaign than a Farage or Hannan who are better talking to their own party's supporters.
The president of the Dominican Football Federation recently compared Blatter to Moses, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Jesus and Nelson Mandela
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Out of Touch Post the Month? I mean (just for starters), is there another Bob Crow that I've never heard of?
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
But that is precisely why we should stay In. If we leave the EU, and rely on the EEA or some similar trade agreement, we've completely lost all protection against Eurozone hegemony. That's one reason why the renegotiation is so important: it gives us the chance to strengthen that protection.
Not just "so" important, but absolutely vital. Let's face it, we have a poor record of influencing the EU to get what we want unless the threat of the big stick (or Mrs T's handbag) is present..
For example, the 1997 Labour Manifesto claimed "We will give Britain leadership in Europe" and set the goal of "Rapid completion of the single market: a top priority for the British presidency." Yet in 2015 the Labour manifesto was still saying "Labour will focus on the completion of the single market...", because in the intervening 18 year the EU has dragged its feet in an area where other countries want to protect vested national interests. (see "Finish the 'scandal' of incomplete Single Market, IoD urges" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10316055/Finish-the-scandal-of-incomplete-Single-Market-IoD-urges.html)
The renegotiation, backed by a credible threat to withdraw following a referendum, is the best chance that the UK has establish the relationship with the EU that it wants.
A posting that completely ignores what I said about the fact that if we were a member of the EEA via EFTA we would still have direct participation in drawing up any new legislation that might affect the city and, more importantly, a veto if the final legislation truly was as bad as you fear.
I ignored it because it is, of course, wrong. By what mechanism could a non-EU member have a veto on what the European Central Bank does?
Those who claim that this vote for Tories lacked enthusiasm or was out of fear might want to reflect on what may happen if the Tories fix their image by 2020. Of course they may well not; government is like that...
And let's not forget that a newly weakened Labour Party might well see its socialist instincts suddenly best served by closer integration.
That's highly unlikely. The original current of Euroscepticism within Labour was driven by the understanding that the aims of the EU were incompatible with socialism. Jacques Delors helped convince the British left that the EU could be beneficial for social democracy, but the recent eurozone crisis and the imposition of fiscal discipline on the periphery has surely put to bed any hope that socialism is best served by integration.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
But that is precisely why we should stay In. If we leave the EU, and rely on the EEA or some similar trade agreement, we've completely lost all protection against Eurozone hegemony. That's one reason why the renegotiation is so important: it gives us the chance to strengthen that protection.
Not just "so" important, but absolutely vital. Let's face it, we have a poor record of influencing the EU to get what we want unless the threat of the big stick (or Mrs T's handbag) is present..
For example, the 1997 Labour Manifesto claimed "We will give Britain leadership in Europe" and set the goal of "Rapid completion of the single market: a top priority for the British presidency." Yet in 2015 the Labour manifesto was still saying "Labour will focus on the completion of the single market...", because in the intervening 18 year the EU has dragged its feet in an area where other countries want to protect vested national interests. (see "Finish the 'scandal' of incomplete Single Market, IoD urges" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10316055/Finish-the-scandal-of-incomplete-Single-Market-IoD-urges.html)
The renegotiation, backed by a credible threat to withdraw following a referendum, is the best chance that the UK has establish the relationship with the EU that it wants.
Whilst I adore Mr Hannan in many respects - he's got a sharpness about him/his intellect that makes me feel a bit stupid just listening to him. That quality doesn't make him good front man material for a popular campaign.
I hope Mr Farage keeps well out of it - he's far too marmite. Be interesting to see who comes forward for the Inners - and please not some old retread like Ken Euro Clark.
My memory of the 1975 In campaign was it had the benefit of a happier and more positive leadership, the Out campaign was dreary, pessimistic and with Peter Shore, Eric Heffer, Eric Varley, Powell, Benn and Foot leading the Outs wasn't an attractive (in both meanings of the word) group to garner support outside of the already committed. Many of the prominent Out campaigners today are reminiscent of that unprepossessing bunch of 1975, middle or post middle aged and grumpy. They need to present an attractive and positive, smiling and keen face certainly not the Sepp Blatter of British politics Mr Farage.
Yes . Agree.
Hannan? Clever. Common touch ? Nope. Farage? A gift to to IN campaign.
Dyson has been suggested.. As all his production is overseas... a hostage to fortune.
I will add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Farage should not lead the 'out' campaign. He'll turn off too many people who might be persuadable.
I would like to vote for "Out" but I am not persuaded to do so. If it meant siding with Farage then it just gives me another reason to bite down hard and vote "Yes". When I see some of the policies UKIP and some of its candidates espoused then I do not want to be conferring any form of legitimacy on them.
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
Miss C, I'd suggest reconsidering voting In just because of Farage. An In vote wouldn't deliver a single elected politician for UKIP (it would, indeed, destroy their USP). In the same way, if we vote In and end up with more integration, that will have a far greater impact than an Out on Farage.
Of course, if you weigh up the situation and still think In's the way to go, fair enough, but I'd argue against voting this way or that because you like or dislike a given politician. Farage has been an arse over his hokey-cokey resignation which wasn't, but the future direction of the UK is substantially more important.
Edited extra bit: broadly agree with all that, Mr. Tyndall. Farage mustn't be the figurehead for Out, or it'll lose by a mile.
Mr Dancer
My main objection to the EU has always been its lack of democratic accountability, its toothless parliament, its habit of stitching up deals in "smoke filled rooms" and its consistency in never thinking its policies through properly or their impact on business and people. To some extent this was redressed a few years ago when the EU parliament had a minor power grab, but nothing like it needs for proper democratic accountability.
Combine all this with the continuation of a European policy that has existed since the Middle Ages - the raiding of the UK as a treasure chest to hand out largesse or finance european schemes that money is otherwise lacking for. The proposed FTT is just the latest attempt of something that has been going on for 1,500 years or so.
Having said all that - I do not believe we can wield much influence from the outside and thus the attempt has to be made to reform the whole stupid system from the inside.
If I thought that the EU could operate on a sensible, logical and accountable basis then I would definitely vote for "In", but it does not seem to work that way.
"According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto."
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
I am sure that there is some purpose to that ^^^^ but I cannot imagine what it could be.
Miss C, I'd suggest reconsidering voting In just because of Farage. An In vote wouldn't deliver a single elected politician for UKIP (it would, indeed, destroy their USP). In the same way, if we vote In and end up with more integration, that will have a far greater impact than an Out on Farage.
Of course, if you weigh up the situation and still think In's the way to go, fair enough, but I'd argue against voting this way or that because you like or dislike a given politician. Farage has been an arse over his hokey-cokey resignation which wasn't, but the future direction of the UK is substantially more important.
Edited extra bit: broadly agree with all that, Mr. Tyndall. Farage mustn't be the figurehead for Out, or it'll lose by a mile.
Mr Dancer
My main objection to the EU has always been its lack of democratic accountability, its toothless parliament, its habit of stitching up deals in "smoke filled rooms" and its consistency in never thinking its policies through properly or their impact on business and people. To some extent this was redressed a few years ago when the EU parliament had a minor power grab, but nothing like it needs for proper democratic accountability.
Combine all this with the continuation of a European policy that has existed since the Middle Ages - the raiding of the UK as a treasure chest to hand out largesse or finance european schemes that money is otherwise lacking for. The proposed FTT is just the latest attempt of something that has been going on for 1,500 years or so.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
Surely the whole point of the Civil Service is to advise ministers of what they believe to be the best course of action for the country. Ministers are, of course, free to ignore this advice and instruct them to proceed otherwise.
If the Civil Service believe that staying in the EU is Britain's best interests, then they are simply doing their job advising them of this.
The Civil Service exist to serve the Government of the day, which also means implementing government policy when they believe it is not the best course of action for the country.
The existence of purdah for elections exists so that the Civil Service does not compromise its impartiality by being used by the incumbent government to campaign against the opposition.
The referendum exists in a sort of grey zone between these two, if it is clear and unambiguous government policy to campaign in favour of EU membership then one could accuse the civil service of showing partiality by not supporting government policy.
In general I would prefer that the Civil Service err on the side of demonstrating impartiality by observing purdah for referenda, but I can see why the politicians in charge believe that it should implement government policy.
It's not in a grey zone at all. It's an election, so the Civil Service should be impartial. It's also Government policy for the Conservatives to get back into power. The idea that the Civil Service would be showing partiality for not backing that is clearly bunkum. This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum or the Alternative Vote referendum. Yet once again we see how the EU makes politicians take exceptions to the usual democratic principles.
And beyond the obvious undemocratic nature of this whole charade, it's also a huge strategic mistake for the Conservative party. The whole point of this referendum was to put the EU issue at bed for a good 10-20 years. But now we have a slanted question, the Cabinet whipped to support one side, a highly contracted time span for campaigning, and the full force of the organs of state used to back one side. If the Eurosceptics lose this, they will be completely within their merits to dismiss it as a rigged vote and to demand another one as soon as possible.
What we REALLY need is for the OUT camp to get a run of 50-55% polls through this year, in order to really put the wind up Merkel.
Some nice, fat, concessions follow "Das Vow" appears in Der Spiegel, "Le Vow" in Le Monde. The result is a landslide 75% for IN, after which the pollsters are exiled to St Helena.
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
I am sure that there is some purpose to that ^^^^ but I cannot imagine what it could be.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
Miss C, I'd vote for that theoretical EU as well, but it not only doesn't exist, the organisation is moving further away from it and towards ever-closer union. If you vote In, you're voting to remain part of an organisation which as a eurozone core that has the voting muscle to always outmatch us on QMV.
It will be very difficult to persuade the disinterested to vote Out.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
The accounts of the UK have not been signed off by any firm of accountants either. Nor have those of the US, or France, or China, or India.
But, unlike the EU, they aren't required to (unless I am mistaken).
The main reason EU accounts have not been signed off is insufficient accounting standards by member countries.
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
I am sure that there is some purpose to that ^^^^ but I cannot imagine what it could be.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
Why on earth would you cast a vote that would inevitably give great power to a bunch of politicians who recently have put on a freakshow of egomania?
If the defects of the EU aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, why would you risk that?
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
I am sure that there is some purpose to that ^^^^ but I cannot imagine what it could be.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
Of course the problem with campaigning for Out on the basis that we can then join EFTA or the EEA is that immediately on achieving an Out vote, quite a lot of the Out movement will next want us out of EFTA or the EEA just as much.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
In other news, I'm planning to campaign for the legalisation of hard drugs because I don't like the colour of Ann Widdecombe's shoes, and abolish the NHS because Carry On Nurse was a dissapointment in the scheme of the 'Carry On' canon. I would also like to propose the RAF carpet bombs Calcutta because I waited an unnacceptably long time for my Indian takeaway the other night and when it came they'd forgotten the poppadoms.
I am sure that there is some purpose to that ^^^^ but I cannot imagine what it could be.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
Also known as "Human Nature".
Not bonkers. It's going to take probably five years of uncertainty after a no vote to leave, during which time hard work and trust are going to be so vital. So while I don't care if Farage and I vote for the same X-Factor contestant (or CAMRA Pub of the Year) I do care what the overall no platform is like and who leads it.
Not so. There is an absolute veto on any legislation at the last resort. Any EFTA member can veto any proposed EEA legislation at the Joint Committee. ... "According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto."
You've misunderstood that paragraph. It is about changes to the EEA Agreement ("new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement"). It is NOT a veto on an EU decision within the areas already covered by the EEA agreement, for which implementation is automatic:
Once an EC act has gone through the EC procedures and been adopted, the desk officer in the EFTA Secretariat responsible for that area prepares a standard sheet concerning that particular act. The standard sheet is a form which records all references and vital information about the act in question. EFTA experts in the capitals must answer a number of questions, such as whether the act is EEA-relevant, whether it will require technical adaptations for implementation in the EEA EFTA States, and whether it is likely to have constitutional requirements (see Article 103 EEA).
Once the experts have returned the standard sheets to the Secretariat, the EC act is put on the agenda for the responsible subcommittee to confirm that it is EEA-relevant. Upon confirmation, the Secretariat drafts a Joint Committee Decision (JCD). Priority is given according to the timing of implementation of the legislation in the EU. The draft JCD is sent to the experts for approval and then, once it has been returned by the experts, the draft JCD comes under final legal scrutiny in the Secretariat before it is put on the agenda for the relevant subcommittee, where it is approved and handed over to the Commission.
The Secretariat then consults the Commission on the timing of adoption by the EEA Joint Committee.
Spy pigeon jailed in India: Bird accused of working for Pakistani intelligence is placed in custody
Pigeon was arrested after landing in Manwal, near the Pakistan border It had a wire-like object on its body and a stamped message on its tail Police had the intruder X-rayed but found nothing unusual The bird is still being held in custody, listed as a 'suspected spy'
Mr. Antifrank, give great power to whom? It's not a choice of Farage as Prime Minister if we vote Out. The Government remains Conservative.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage's response to a No vote would be to put his feet up, smoke a cigarette and drink a pint? He would be demanding a role in the exit negotiations and inflicting his odious narcissism on us on the public stage indefinitely.
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Yes, incorrect on both counts.
Just to revisit your initial claim in all its glory:
"The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo."
There is a time to dig, and a time to refrain from digging.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
You will not win people over to your point of view by calling them bonkers. Where people right to back the Nazis because they provided employment, good roads and made the trains run on time?
Farage and his associates become with baggage that matters. An "out" vote merely increases the standing of a bunch of people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine.
Mr. Antifrank, give great power to whom? It's not a choice of Farage as Prime Minister if we vote Out. The Government remains Conservative.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage's response to a No vote would be to put his feet up, smoke a cigarette and drink a pint? He would be demanding a role in the exit negotiations and inflicting his odious narcissism on us on the public stage indefinitely.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
Mr. Antifrank, give great power to whom? It's not a choice of Farage as Prime Minister if we vote Out. The Government remains Conservative.
If IN wins - as appears likely - then UKIP will be a spent force, and will probably sink without trace. Look what happened to the SNP.
UKIP don't own British (or English) identity in the way that the SNP have taken possession of Scottish identity. The parallel is often drawn but I doubt UKIP will benefit half as much from the referendum as is sometimes suggested, particularly given that the general election will not take place until some years after the referendum result, by which time the topic will have lost much of its salience.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
MalcolmG, is that you?
It is the Scottish strategy, the fact they came close shows its worth.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage's response to a No vote would be to put his feet up, smoke a cigarette and drink a pint? He would be demanding a role in the exit negotiations and inflicting his odious narcissism on us on the public stage indefinitely.
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
What a Knobend you are
Perhaps you can drone on about Putin, whom you seem to have a fixation on.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
What a Knobend you are
Perhaps you can drone on about Putin, whom you seem to have a fixation on.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Yes, incorrect on both counts.
Just to revisit your initial claim in all its glory:
"The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo."
There is a time to dig, and a time to refrain from digging.
Saying something regarding the railways on PB without thoroughly fact checking is guaranteed to end in disaster.
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
Boy, Labour must be wishing they could take those back...
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
What a Knobend you are
Perhaps you can drone on about Putin, whom you seem to have a fixation on.
It's certainly the case that a good general rule of international decision-making is to try to work out what Vladimir Putin would want us to do and start from the presumption that the opposite is the wisest course of action. On this occasion that would mean voting IN.
It's a rebuttable presumption, but it's a fairly strong one.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
You will not win people over to your point of view by calling them bonkers. Where people right to back the Nazis because they provided employment, good roads and made the trains run on time?
Farage and his associates become with baggage that matters. An "out" vote merely increases the standing of a bunch of people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine.
The Polly Toynbee approach for In should be a real winner.
Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury permanent secretary and its most senior civil servant, said earlier this year that he believed impartiality guidelines “do not apply” in “extreme” cases like the Scottish Independence referendum.
Dear sandpit, where we go afterwards is the most important point for the credibility of the OUT campaign.
Yes, and where we go afterwards is that "We are free to trade with whoever we like, can negotiate agreements with the USA, China, India and Australia. We will have a seat at the table at the WTO and all major international trade agreements"
Technical arguments about EEA and EFTA need to stay on sites like this and with the policy wonks - as part of our strategy for what happens after we agree to leave. The In side will be desperate to frame the debate in such details and the Out campaign need to stay away from it.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
You will not win people over to your point of view by calling them bonkers. Where people right to back the Nazis because they provided employment, good roads and made the trains run on time?
Farage and his associates become with baggage that matters. An "out" vote merely increases the standing of a bunch of people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine.
I think it's best to judge an issue on its merits.
Mr. Antifrank, give great power to whom? It's not a choice of Farage as Prime Minister if we vote Out. The Government remains Conservative.
If IN wins - as appears likely - then UKIP will be a spent force, and will probably sink without trace. Look what happened to the SNP.
UKIP don't own British (or English) identity in the way that the SNP have taken possession of Scottish identity. The parallel is often drawn but I doubt UKIP will benefit half as much from the referendum as is sometimes suggested, particularly given that the general election will not take place until some years after the referendum result, by which time the topic will have lost much of its salience.
True enough. It's going to interesting to watch the purple line on the charts, for sure. Still likely to be a large spike around the referendum, as there is around every European election. (in the charts, and probably in a few kippers' trousers)
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other. Perhaps there was other inappropriate behaviour that fell short of that, and that is wrong, but this is going much, much further.
Mr. Antifrank, give great power to whom? It's not a choice of Farage as Prime Minister if we vote Out. The Government remains Conservative.
Do you really think that Nigel Farage's response to a No vote would be to put his feet up, smoke a cigarette and drink a pint? He would be demanding a role in the exit negotiations and inflicting his odious narcissism on us on the public stage indefinitely.
Probably not, but I can't see any realistic role for him in the exit negotiations, either.
But obviously all this pales into insignificance when compared to not liking the cut of Nigel Farage's gib.
It is simple enough. There is a lot I dislike in the EU and our relationship with it, but Farage turns my stomach and the misogynistic and intolerant agenda of a lot of his supporters does not want to make me associate with them in any way. For once in my life, I just might not bother to vote.
There are a lot more votes in people who dislike the likes of you and your inflated sense of worth
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other. Perhaps there was other inappropriate behaviour that fell short of that, and that is wrong, but this is going much, much further.
The Treasury’s Scotland Analysis Programme Team won the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award in this year’s Civil Service Awards.
He added: “As civil servants you don't get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we're part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other. Perhaps there was other inappropriate behaviour that fell short of that, and that is wrong, but this is going much, much further.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other.
Not so. The UK civil service kept out of taking sides in IndyRef - because it was seen as a decision for Scotland - but the Scottish civil service most certainly didn't. Completely the opposite, in fact:
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
It may be that it is an issue that galvanises a significant minority but whilst that may be fine for an election campaign it will get you nowhere when you need an absolute majority of the vote to get your way. Immigration controls mean no EEA which means no automatic access to the open market and which means far more uncertainty about future trade. Now you and I may be confident that a deal will be done but trying to convince large numbers of undecideds whilst they are being bombarded with incessant false claims about the collapse of our businesses by the IN camp will make the job of winning the campaign infinitely more difficult.
We need to be able to present a clear and settled vision of our trade relations with the EU after we leave and EEA does exactly that. Once that barrier is removed we can concentrate far more effectively on the more emotive questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
This is why the Civil Service did not argue for one side or the other for either the Scottish Independence referendum
Yes they did, there were special units of the Civil Service set up for the Scottish Indy Ref to secure a No vote, they won Civil Service awards for performance.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other. Perhaps there was other inappropriate behaviour that fell short of that, and that is wrong, but this is going much, much further.
The Treasury’s Scotland Analysis Programme Team won the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award in this year’s Civil Service Awards.
He added: “As civil servants you don't get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we're part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
Alarmingly off-message. Don't worry, you'll not be hearing from him again.
As mentioned previously, they were explicitly banned from openly publishing reports supporting one side or the other.
Not so. The UK civil service kept out of taking sides in IndyRef - because it was seen as a decision for Scotland - but the Scottish civil service most certainly didn't. Completely the opposite, in fact:
The UK civil service most assuredly did, unless The Treasury’s Scotland Analysis Programme Team won those awards for twiddling their thumbs rather than being "part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation"
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
It may be that it is an issue that galvanises a significant minority but whilst that may be fine for an election campaign it will get you nowhere when you need an absolute majority of the vote to get your way. Immigration controls mean no EEA which means no automatic access to the open market and which means far more uncertainty about future trade. Now you and I may be confident that a deal will be done but trying to convince large numbers of undecideds whilst they are being bombarded with incessant false claims about the collapse of our businesses by the IN camp will make the job of winning the campaign infinitely more difficult.
We need to be able to present a clear and settled vision of our trade relations with the EU after we leave and EEA does exactly that. Once that barrier is removed we can concentrate far more effectively on the more emotive questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
I've not made up my mind about this, but thanks for a thoughtful article.
The Norwegian model was designed for a country much smaller than the UK, and one totally dominated by trade with the EU, exports to which are around 30% of its GDP, three times higher than for us.
I'm not sure the EU would extend the right to veto directives, which Norway has, to us. I don't think they've formally offered us EEA membership and if the NO side in the referendum proposes it without the EU agreeing, they'd be in the same place as the YES campaign in Scotland expecting to keep the pound without England's agreement. As of 2010, I don't think Norway had ever exercised that veto, and it certainly rarely does so (it may have done over the 2012 Postal Services Directive). And when it looks likely to do so, it comes under big pressure from Brussels not to. Big, difficult Britain on the other hand would be another matter entirely. We'd probably veto a lot more and be much less susceptible to EU pressure to toe the line.
I need to look into the Swiss example, which is different from the Norwegian. But I'm attracted by the idea of making a clean break with the whole alphabet soup of EU institutions. We seemed able to live without them before 1972 and I'm not sure why we couldn't do so now. The trade agreement negotiations would take years, but that would be a short term problem, and we'd get our independence back. Of course we could mess up outside the EU, as well as thrive, but at least we'd have only ourselves to blame.
and would love nothing more to give you a kicking.
Oooo! Threats! Should I panic?
No, no, no. Just Russian democracy in action. [You're not a journalist, are you?]
No Mr Anorak. Nor do I worry about threats from keyboard warriors, so Mr Flag can fold his until it is all sharp corners and store it where the sun does not shine.
I'll be casting my vote as a vote of No Confidence in the EU. I'm not willing to remain part of an organisation that I strongly dislike, for fear that the alternative may be worse.
Of course the problem with campaigning for Out on the basis that we can then join EFTA or the EEA is that immediately on achieving an Out vote, quite a lot of the Out movement will next want us out of EFTA or the EEA just as much.
Known to quantum scientists as 'The Farage Paradox'.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Yes, incorrect on both counts.
Just to revisit your initial claim in all its glory:
"The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo."
There is a time to dig, and a time to refrain from digging.
Saying something regarding the railways on PB without thoroughly fact checking is guaranteed to end in disaster.
Indeed. This week is the centenary of the Quintinshill disaster (crowded troop train, old stock, fire).
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
It may be that it is an issue that galvanises a significant minority but whilst that may be fine for an election campaign it will get you nowhere when you need an absolute majority of the vote to get your way. Immigration controls mean no EEA which means no automatic access to the open market and which means far more uncertainty about future trade. Now you and I may be confident that a deal will be done but trying to convince large numbers of undecideds whilst they are being bombarded with incessant false claims about the collapse of our businesses by the IN camp will make the job of winning the campaign infinitely more difficult.
We need to be able to present a clear and settled vision of our trade relations with the EU after we leave and EEA does exactly that. Once that barrier is removed we can concentrate far more effectively on the more emotive questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
It is a large majority, not a significant minority, that want immigration reduced. A large proportion of these are left-wing voters that would be added to right-leaning eurosceptics.
You've misunderstood that paragraph. It is about changes to the EEA Agreement ("new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement"). It is NOT a veto on an EU decision within the areas already covered by the EEA agreement, for which implementation is automatic:
Once an EC act has gone through the EC procedures and been adopted, the desk officer in the EFTA Secretariat responsible for that area prepares a standard sheet concerning that particular act. The standard sheet is a form which records all references and vital information about the act in question. EFTA experts in the capitals must answer a number of questions, such as whether the act is EEA-relevant, whether it will require technical adaptations for implementation in the EEA EFTA States, and whether it is likely to have constitutional requirements (see Article 103 EEA).
Once the experts have returned the standard sheets to the Secretariat, the EC act is put on the agenda for the responsible subcommittee to confirm that it is EEA-relevant. Upon confirmation, the Secretariat drafts a Joint Committee Decision (JCD). Priority is given according to the timing of implementation of the legislation in the EU. The draft JCD is sent to the experts for approval and then, once it has been returned by the experts, the draft JCD comes under final legal scrutiny in the Secretariat before it is put on the agenda for the relevant subcommittee, where it is approved and handed over to the Commission.
The Secretariat then consults the Commission on the timing of adoption by the EEA Joint Committee.
I do not misunderstand it at all. Any and all new legislation relating to the operation of the single market and affecting the EEA has to be integrated into the EEA Agreement. All new legislation is therefore subject to scrutiny and ultimately veto by EFTA members if they feel it is against their national interests.
This is the case both in principle and in practice - every single directive and regulation related to the Single Market has had to go through this process and has had to have the agreement of EFTA members before it became part of the EEA Agreement.
On another topic, I've just reluctantly read Power Trip, Damian McBride. All these type of books just morph into one. Ed Balls insistence that he and 'Mr McBride' barely knew each other, is frankly laughable.
The Norwegian model was designed for a country much smaller than the UK, and one totally dominated by trade with the EU, exports to which are around 30% of its GDP, three times higher than for us.
I'm not sure the EU would extend the right to veto directives, which Norway has, to us. I don't think they've formally offered us EEA membership and if the NO side in the referendum proposes it without the EU agreeing, they'd be in the same place as the YES campaign in Scotland expecting to keep the pound without England's agreement. As of 2010, I don't think Norway had ever exercised that veto, and it certainly rarely does so (it may have done over the 2012 Postal Services Directive). And when it looks likely to do so, it comes under big pressure from Brussels not to. Big, difficult Britain on the other hand would be another matter entirely. We'd probably veto a lot more and be much less susceptible to EU pressure to toe the line.
I need to look into the Swiss example, which is different from the Norwegian. But I'm attracted by the idea of making a clean break with the whole alphabet soup of EU institutions. We seemed able to live without them before 1972 and I'm not sure why we couldn't do so now. The trade agreement negotiations would take years, but that would be a short term problem, and we'd get our independence back. Of course we could mess up outside the EU, as well as thrive, but at least we'd have only ourselves to blame.
Actually the Norwegian view is that the mere existence of the veto has encouraged the EU to compromise and accept EFTA amendments so that they never had to use the veto.
And we are currently a signatory to the EEA agreement independent of the EU, which also signs in its own right.
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
It may be that it is an issue that galvanises a significant minority but whilst that may be fine for an election campaign it will get you nowhere when you need an absolute majority of the vote to get your way. Immigration controls mean no EEA which means no automatic access to the open market and which means far more uncertainty about future trade. Now you and I may be confident that a deal will be done but trying to convince large numbers of undecideds whilst they are being bombarded with incessant false claims about the collapse of our businesses by the IN camp will make the job of winning the campaign infinitely more difficult.
We need to be able to present a clear and settled vision of our trade relations with the EU after we leave and EEA does exactly that. Once that barrier is removed we can concentrate far more effectively on the more emotive questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
It is a large majority, not a significant minority, that want immigration reduced. A large proportion of these are left-wing voters that would be added to right-leaning eurosceptics.
In fairness to Bob Crow, when you kept him off politics and strictly to rail-related matters, he was really good. He was particularly good at safety stuff - when he took over, around 100 of his members died every year on average in accidents of one sort or another, by the time he died it was under two a year on average. That was very largely, as the rail companies acknowledged, thanks to both his persistence and to his technical knowledge. .
I'll be casting my vote as a vote of No Confidence in the EU. I'm not willing to remain part of an organisation that I strongly dislike, for fear that the alternative may be worse.
I will be casting my vote on the same basis. While I am confident this country would be more prosperous outside of the EU, there are no conceivable circumstances in which I would vote to remain in an organisation, for example, which asserts that it is my destiny that my fundamental status will be as a citizen of the EU, rather than as a British Citizen. If the Treaties were fundamentally rewritten, I could conceivably vote to stay in, but there is no prospect of that happening.
I'm suggesting deciding a once in a lifetime vote on the future of the country's constitution upon a personal disinclination to be associated with a politician you don't like is absolutely bonkers.
You will not win people over to your point of view by calling them bonkers. Where people right to back the Nazis because they provided employment, good roads and made the trains run on time?
Farage and his associates become with baggage that matters. An "out" vote merely increases the standing of a bunch of people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine.
I didn't call you bonkers, and frankly my role here isn't to win anyone over who would base such a momentous decision on such petty, transient, and party political issues. My hope is that the remainder of the electorate will put personalities to one side and vote with greater consideration to the long term interests of the country.
Dear Fishing ... You point out that Norway is smaller than us, but so is Switzerland. They have about a 20% immigrant population, otherwise it would be even smaller.
For some reason, the FIFA live stream is allowing comments. No suprises what happened next. Random examples:
"Get out of FIFA! Get out of FIFA! YOU FAT SWISS CORRUPT BASTARD! GET OUT OF FIFA!!!" "CAN'T BATTER THE BLATTER" I quite like this one "FUCK USA+ISRAEL" "europe and america are real football fuck asia, africa and the islands of atlatntic and pacific"
I do not misunderstand it at all. Any and all new legislation relating to the operation of the single market and affecting the EEA has to be integrated into the EEA Agreement. All new legislation is therefore subject to scrutiny and ultimately veto by EFTA members if they feel it is against their national interests.
This is the case both in principle and in practice - every single directive and regulation related to the Single Market has had to go through this process and has had to have the agreement of EFTA members before it became part of the EEA Agreement.
That's a formality, though. In practice, EU directives get implemented. The Postal Services Directive seems to be a rare exception, in that Norway refused to implement it, which violated the principles they'd signed up to, and for which sanctions were imposed by the EU. Even there, I think Norway are giving in now, are they not?
In addition, you claimed Norway had a veto on what the EU did. That's nonsense. Norway were not able to veto the Postal Services Directive, they merely attempted not to implement it in Norway. In particular, my example was the Euro Clearinghouses decision, which, because of our membership of the EU, we were able to thwart. The EEA would not give us that protection, let alone the enhanced protection which I think we'll be able to negotiate.
Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/business/dealbook/european-court-upholds-british-view-on-euro-clearinghouses.html?_r=0
If we leave, they will be under no such obligation to consider our interests.
Even more important, as part of the renegotiation, there is a very strong chance that we will be able to strengthen this protection, as a quid pro quo for those Eurozone reforms which everyone agrees are necessary.
Obviously this is something to be watched, and whether or not progress is made on this will be one factor I'll consider in deciding how to vote. However, as I said upthread, if the alternative is the worst-of-all-worlds EEA membership, I'll certainly vote to stay in.
I am not against the purpose behind the negotiations. We can probably negotiate a better deal from within. But if the deal looks to have holes in it then it will become a running sore. Pardon the mixed metaphors. I believe we can stay in but it will have to work that we can operate alongside the eurozone and we are free from ever closer union. This is a big crunch that cannot be avoided one which Cameron flagged up years ago.
And let's not forget that a newly weakened Labour Party might well see its socialist instincts suddenly best served by closer integration. What is good is that a conservative govt is dealing with it.
Miss C, I'd suggest reconsidering voting In just because of Farage. An In vote wouldn't deliver a single elected politician for UKIP (it would, indeed, destroy their USP). In the same way, if we vote In and end up with more integration, that will have a far greater impact than an Out on Farage.
Of course, if you weigh up the situation and still think In's the way to go, fair enough, but I'd argue against voting this way or that because you like or dislike a given politician. Farage has been an arse over his hokey-cokey resignation which wasn't, but the future direction of the UK is substantially more important.
Edited extra bit: broadly agree with all that, Mr. Tyndall. Farage mustn't be the figurehead for Out, or it'll lose by a mile.
It is worth reading this: https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_eu_budget_rejected_auditors_18_years-28593 as well as the full accounts of the EU.
A few points on the campaigning -
1. The Out campaign need to emphasise that there is no status quo here - the EU is going full steam towards integration and becoming a single country. Do we want to be part of that or do we see ourselves as an international player in our own right, able to negotiate trade deals on our behalf with the other 80% of the world economy, that which is expanding. Also emphasise there is a difference between free movement of and a free movement of , this needs effective communication.
2. The campaigners at this stage need to be talking to their own parties. Key people have already been identified from each party that will support Out - they need to be getting themselves a profile in the coming months and pushing their arguments in the media while rebutting the '3 million jobs' scaremongering of the In campaign. It is really important that supporters of all political parties are seen to be involved at this stage.
3. The campaign has to be relentlessly positive. Don't get bogged down in EU v EFTA v EEA details - where we go afterwards will be for the people to decide in due course following consultations; the process of leaving will take a year or two, there will be elections and possibly another referendum to determine the approach to take.
4. The main figurehead for the Out campaign needs to be chosen a few months before the vote, once we know what has been negotiated (or otherwise) and who will be on the Out side - there will be senior people from all parties defecting if the negotiations are dud, much better to choose one of those to lead the national campaign than a Farage or Hannan who are better talking to their own party's supporters.
What a numpty
For example, the 1997 Labour Manifesto claimed "We will give Britain leadership in Europe" and set the goal of "Rapid completion of the single market: a top priority for the British presidency."
Yet in 2015 the Labour manifesto was still saying "Labour will focus on the completion of the single market...", because in the intervening 18 year the EU has dragged its feet in an area where other countries want to protect vested national interests.
(see "Finish the 'scandal' of incomplete Single Market, IoD urges" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10316055/Finish-the-scandal-of-incomplete-Single-Market-IoD-urges.html)
The renegotiation, backed by a credible threat to withdraw following a referendum, is the best chance that the UK has establish the relationship with the EU that it wants.
Somewhat off-topic - good piece by George Pascoe Watson on the Tories' chance to embed themselves in government to 2025 (and beyond?)
http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/449661/cameron-will-need-the-iron-will-and-discipline-that-kept-blair-in-power.thtml
Those who claim that this vote for Tories lacked enthusiasm or was out of fear might want to reflect on what may happen if the Tories fix their image by 2020. Of course they may well not; government is like that...
I hope Mr Farage keeps well out of it - he's far too marmite. Be interesting to see who comes forward for the Inners - and please not some old retread like Ken Euro Clark.
http://www.efta.int/eea/decision-shaping
Of course they have no veto, but they are able to provide input.
Once a decision is taken by the EU, they have to implement it if it is within the scope of the EEA:
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-institutions/eea-decision-making
My main objection to the EU has always been its lack of democratic accountability, its toothless parliament, its habit of stitching up deals in "smoke filled rooms" and its consistency in never thinking its policies through properly or their impact on business and people. To some extent this was redressed a few years ago when the EU parliament had a minor power grab, but nothing like it needs for proper democratic accountability.
Combine all this with the continuation of a European policy that has existed since the Middle Ages - the raiding of the UK as a treasure chest to hand out largesse or finance european schemes that money is otherwise lacking for. The proposed FTT is just the latest attempt of something that has been going on for 1,500 years or so.
Having said all that - I do not believe we can wield much influence from the outside and thus the attempt has to be made to reform the whole stupid system from the inside.
If I thought that the EU could operate on a sensible, logical and accountable basis then I would definitely vote for "In", but it does not seem to work that way.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/dep/UD/reports-to-the-storting/20002001/report_no-12_to_the_storting_2000-2001/7/id193725/
To quote from the Norwegian government:
"According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto."
And beyond the obvious undemocratic nature of this whole charade, it's also a huge strategic mistake for the Conservative party. The whole point of this referendum was to put the EU issue at bed for a good 10-20 years. But now we have a slanted question, the Cabinet whipped to support one side, a highly contracted time span for campaigning, and the full force of the organs of state used to back one side. If the Eurosceptics lose this, they will be completely within their merits to dismiss it as a rigged vote and to demand another one as soon as possible.
Some nice, fat, concessions follow "Das Vow" appears in Der Spiegel, "Le Vow" in Le Monde. The result is a landslide 75% for IN, after which the pollsters are exiled to St Helena.
Trebles all round.
If the defects of the EU aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, why would you risk that?
Once an EC act has gone through the EC procedures and been adopted, the desk officer in the EFTA Secretariat responsible for that area prepares a standard sheet concerning that particular act. The standard sheet is a form which records all references and vital information about the act in question. EFTA experts in the capitals must answer a number of questions, such as whether the act is EEA-relevant, whether it will require technical adaptations for implementation in the EEA EFTA States, and whether it is likely to have constitutional requirements (see Article 103 EEA).
Once the experts have returned the standard sheets to the Secretariat, the EC act is put on the agenda for the responsible subcommittee to confirm that it is EEA-relevant. Upon confirmation, the Secretariat drafts a Joint Committee Decision (JCD). Priority is given according to the timing of implementation of the legislation in the EU. The draft JCD is sent to the experts for approval and then, once it has been returned by the experts, the draft JCD comes under final legal scrutiny in the Secretariat before it is put on the agenda for the relevant subcommittee, where it is approved and handed over to the Commission.
The Secretariat then consults the Commission on the timing of adoption by the EEA Joint Committee.
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-institutions/eea-decision-making
Mr. Anorak, indeed.
I think this was a very good article, but ultimately incorrect in its conclusions. The immigration issue is by far the strongest card the 'Out' side have to play. This is not just with ardent right-wing eurosceptics, but with swing voters from Cornwall to Northumbria. It is the second most important issue for the general British electorate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 'In' would lose a fair referendum unless David Cameron secures restrictions on immigration in the treaties. 'Uncontrolled immigration' and 'open borders' are easily understood and energising terms for even the politically apathetic.
Admittedly it does not look like we will be getting a fair referendum right now.
"The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo."
There is a time to dig, and a time to refrain from digging.
Farage and his associates become with baggage that matters. An "out" vote merely increases the standing of a bunch of people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine.
+10
It's a rebuttable presumption, but it's a fairly strong one.
Technical arguments about EEA and EFTA need to stay on sites like this and with the policy wonks - as part of our strategy for what happens after we agree to leave. The In side will be desperate to frame the debate in such details and the Out campaign need to stay away from it.
Oooo! Threats! Should I panic?
https://www.scotreferendum.com/reports/scotlands-future-what-independence-means-for-you/
We need to be able to present a clear and settled vision of our trade relations with the EU after we leave and EEA does exactly that. Once that barrier is removed we can concentrate far more effectively on the more emotive questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
https://goo.gl/IKuWLQ
I'm not sure the EU would extend the right to veto directives, which Norway has, to us. I don't think they've formally offered us EEA membership and if the NO side in the referendum proposes it without the EU agreeing, they'd be in the same place as the YES campaign in Scotland expecting to keep the pound without England's agreement. As of 2010, I don't think Norway had ever exercised that veto, and it certainly rarely does so (it may have done over the 2012 Postal Services Directive). And when it looks likely to do so, it comes under big pressure from Brussels not to. Big, difficult Britain on the other hand would be another matter entirely. We'd probably veto a lot more and be much less susceptible to EU pressure to toe the line.
I need to look into the Swiss example, which is different from the Norwegian. But I'm attracted by the idea of making a clean break with the whole alphabet soup of EU institutions. We seemed able to live without them before 1972 and I'm not sure why we couldn't do so now. The trade agreement negotiations would take years, but that would be a short term problem, and we'd get our independence back. Of course we could mess up outside the EU, as well as thrive, but at least we'd have only ourselves to blame.
You are both on the verge of being exiled to the naughty step for the rest of the weekend or longer.
For the avoidance of doubt, insulting comments towards other posters or threats of violence like you've posted just now will not be tolerated.
If in doubt, zip it.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/14.3
This is the case both in principle and in practice - every single directive and regulation related to the Single Market has had to go through this process and has had to have the agreement of EFTA members before it became part of the EEA Agreement.
On another topic, I've just reluctantly read Power Trip, Damian McBride. All these type of books just morph into one. Ed Balls insistence that he and 'Mr McBride' barely knew each other, is frankly laughable.
And we are currently a signatory to the EEA agreement independent of the EU, which also signs in its own right.
all to play for
"Get out of FIFA! Get out of FIFA! YOU FAT SWISS CORRUPT BASTARD! GET OUT OF FIFA!!!"
"CAN'T BATTER THE BLATTER" I quite like this one
"FUCK USA+ISRAEL"
"europe and america are real football fuck asia, africa and the islands of atlatntic and pacific"
It goes on...
In addition, you claimed Norway had a veto on what the EU did. That's nonsense. Norway were not able to veto the Postal Services Directive, they merely attempted not to implement it in Norway. In particular, my example was the Euro Clearinghouses decision, which, because of our membership of the EU, we were able to thwart. The EEA would not give us that protection, let alone the enhanced protection which I think we'll be able to negotiate.