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. 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.
Nope it is absolutely clear. The EEA Agreement allows for a veto of legislation in exactly the way I described. EFTA themselves believe that the existence of the veto means they do not usually have to use it as the EU is forced to moderate its position and compromise for fear legislation could be thrown out en masse if they do not.
And whilst the ECJ only adjudicates on EU members, there is a parallel court - the EFTA Court which can adjudicate on similar matters where EFTA members are also involved in addition to EU members. There is no reason to believe that a decision from the EFTA court - which is usually taken into account by the ECJ when reaching decisions - would have been any different.
"The EFTA Court has in the majority of its cases been faced with legal issues that have not or not fully been decided by the ECJ. The EEA Agreement does not contain a written rule that would oblige the ECJ to take into account the case law of the EFTA Court when interpreting EU or EEA law. In practice, both Union Courts (the ECJ and the EGC), have, however, made reference to EFTA Court jurisprudence. As to the interpretation of EEA law, the Union courts reverted to judgments by the EFTA Court with regard to the legal nature of the EEA Agreement, the principle of State liability in EEA law, the free movement of goods and the freedom of establishment."
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
One wonders what Farage has to screw up that will make him accept he has failed in politics.
He has failed to get a Westminster seat; failed to head off a referendum that he knows he'll lose; failed to be the obvious face of the No campaign; and failed to achieve anything whatsoever in Strasbourg.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
Platini has dropped some strong hints. Let's see if this time a Frenchman can avoid folding like a wet tissue. [kle4 has probably just predicted the future with some accuracy]
That would make a change. *considers IndyRef and GE predictions*
@Richard_Tyndall - 'Veto' is the wrong the word, and highly misleading (although I accept that it's not your word). A veto would mean that an EEA member could prevent the EU from doing something, but that's not the case. Norway has not vetoed and can not veto the Postal Services Directive, can it? It claimed it can opt out of implementing it in Norway, which is not the same thing. Even that doesn't seem to be the case, since the Norwegian government, under pressure from the EU, is now in the process of implementing it.
In practice it's not very different from the situation where an EU member state refuses to implement something, which happens from time to time.
The bottom line is that EEA membership would not give the kind of freedom of action which people who vote UKIP and/or are keen to leave the EU want. In particular it would have virtually no effect on immigration. An Out campaign based on the proposition that nothing much would change on immigration is a non-starter, I'd have thought.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much is the YouGov exit poll which had the following figures:
CON 284 MPs, LAB 263, LIBS 31, SNP 48, UKIP 2, PLAID 3, GREEN 1
That wasn't an exit poll - it was a "re-contact survey" apparently. So subject to the same sampling and/or misreporting issues as the pre-election polls.
"The EFTA Court has in the majority of its cases been faced with legal issues that have not or not fully been decided by the ECJ. The EEA Agreement does not contain a written rule that would oblige the ECJ to take into account the case law of the EFTA Court when interpreting EU or EEA law. In practice, both Union Courts (the ECJ and the EGC), have, however, made reference to EFTA Court jurisprudence. As to the interpretation of EEA law, the Union courts reverted to judgments by the EFTA Court with regard to the legal nature of the EEA Agreement, the principle of State liability in EEA law, the free movement of goods and the freedom of establishment."
This is with respect why we do not want to be a part of EFTA. State liability is a principle invented by the EFTA court in Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1999] 1 CMLR 884, which appears nowhere in the EEA agreement. Likewise, state liability has no basis in TEU or TFEU and had to be invented by the Court of Justice in Francovich v Italian Republic [1993] 2 CMLR 66. It is essential that the UK is not subject to the rulings of any activist foreign court, whether the CJEU or the EFTA court, if we leave the European Union.
All very sensible advice, I'm sure both the YES and NO campaigns will start fully intending to run positive simple messaging campaigns. However, in the last couple of months before the referendum, both will likely descend into Project Fear campaigns with the MSM producing scary front-pages on a daily basis.
I think YES will likely win, but either way the post referendum landscape renders much of the debate FPT premature, as UKIP and the Eurosceptics from the other parties come to terms with defeat. Will UKIP surge like the SNP or will it collapse, whatever the result.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
You'd hope that some country disappointed over 2018 or 2022 could sue FIFA somewhere in the world looking for an injunction to make them re-run the decision process.
Serious Question: Why is Fifa, or an equivalent body even, necessary? What do they add to the process that could not be done without them?
Organisation of the Word Cup would be difficult without them.
Plus development funding (if you think that's appropriate) is easier, since it would other require a transfer from UEFA to other regions.
Not really that much then, all told. You could do both without Fifa(obviously unless Fifa no longer existed it would be a silly alternate world cup, as the world cup is theirs), although it might be a little harder. Certainly nothing that seems to require the level of money or control.
But, must be off. I am sure my dislike of Fifa will remain for the future.
BJB Farage is the only leader of a non-Tory or Labour Party to win a national election across the UK since 1918, as he did in 2014, I also think euRef could well be close, even if In wins in the end, especially as present EU mood music suggests Cameron will get a token, not wholesale, renegotiation
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
Well exactly. Qatar 2022 is the obvious joke, but the real prize would be denying Putin Russia 2018.
@Richard_Tyndall - 'Veto' is the wrong the word, and highly misleading (although I accept that it's not your word). A veto would mean that an EEA member could prevent the EU from doing something, but that's not the case. Norway has not vetoed and can not veto the Postal Services Directive, can it? It claimed it can opt out of implementing it in Norway, which is not the same thing. Even that doesn't seem to be the case, since the Norwegian government, under pressure from the EU, is now in the process of implementing it.
In practice it's not very different from the situation where an EU member state refuses to implement something, which happens from time to time.
The bottom line is that EEA membership would not give the kind of freedom of action which people who vote UKIP and/or are keen to leave the EU want. In particular it would have virtually no effect on immigration. An Out campaign based on the proposition that nothing much would change on immigration is a non-starter, I'd have thought.
For the vast majority of EU secondary legislation, the UK does not have a veto, since it is adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure (see arts 289(1) & 294 TFEU). The example you gave was of the UK successfully challenging a measure in the Court of Justice. That is a comparative rarity. The Court of Justice is a hopelessly partisan court which can rarely be relied on to uphold what is apparently the law if it clashes with the court's bias in favour of integration. We would not be losing much if we lost our ability to challenge directly measures before the Court of Justice under article 262(2) TFEU.
An interesting and thought-provoking piece from Richard T, for which many thanks. The corollary of his analysis is that IN needs to offer reasons to stay above and beyond a message based on fear and confusion. It isn't enough for IN to frighten people into voting YES, there has to be as positive a vision of Britain's future within the EU as the OUT campaign will paint of Britain's future outside the EU (whether in the EEA or not).
At the moment, the crux of the IN message is "don't worry, trust Dave" and one of the key factors behind the Conservative success three weeks ago must have been the number of people who voted not for the Conservatives but for David Cameron who proved himself able (though not quite to the same extent as Thatcher and Blair) to reach out beyond the Conservative core vote.
Again, this works until and unless the Prime Minister's aura of authority and competence is undermined and those disillusioned with the Government see a vote against the Prime Minister as a main method of protest. To imagine this Government not suffering some form of midterm slump in support is naive but how and whether this coincides with the EU Referendum is the key question.
Likewise, to assume that all pro-EU supporters can be assumed to be YES voters is unwise - those who actively like and support the EU ideal (and they do exist for all the ridicule they receive) also need convincing that Cameron isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater and creating a non-membership membership in which Britain sits on the sidelines and opts out of everything.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
Well exactly. Qatar 2022 is the obvious joke, but the real prize would be denying Putin Russia 2018.
Russia is credible, I don't really mind that even disliking Putin. But Qatar, a step too far it has been suggested.
Final thought - if FAs don't break away very quickly, nothing will probably happen. Despite a quote from the head of the Irish FA talking about it being a stretch to think about radical solutions at the moment, if now is not the time, it never will be unless Blatter himself is arrested down the line.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
Well exactly. Qatar 2022 is the obvious joke, but the real prize would be denying Putin Russia 2018.
Russia is credible, I don't really mind that even disliking Putin. But Qatar, a step too far it has been suggested.
Of course Russia is a credible (even overdue) host - but if the Swiss investigation finds that the tournament was awarded illegally then I think the opportunity to humiliate Putin will be very attractive to the USA in particular.
If UEFA have any balls, they'll tell FIFA to do one.
I would presume the rhetoric from them will die down pretty quickly. They can spin that Blatter not winning in the first round was hugely encouraging and shows that Fifa and Blatter will have no choice but to take reform seriously from now on and so on and so forth, and so they they will stick around to see that things improve etc etc.
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
I wonder. I suspect that the European football associations will be coming under behind-the-scenes pressure from their national governments. Michel Platini looked to me like a man who was running ahead of the whip.
Platini is as bent as the rest of them.
He is part of the problem not the solution.
I actually think that a FIFA dominated by European and US interests would be worse than what we have now.
BJB Farage is the only leader of a non-Tory or Labour Party to win a national election across the UK since 1918, as he did in 2014, I also think euRef could well be close, even if In wins in the end, especially as present EU mood music suggests Cameron will get a token, not wholesale, renegotiation
We wouldn't be having a Referendum at all, if it weren't for UKIP. When Cameron became Conservative leader, he wanted his party to stop "banging on" about Europe. We have months of banging on about Europe ahead of us.
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.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
An excellent thread Mr Tyndall. – I despair at the BOO’s sorry effort so far and the total lack of even the most basic requirements for a unified campaign to get off the ground – when it eventually does, I hope you are called upon to help out in some capacity.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
Indeed. British politicians promising reform of the European Union are much like alcoholics promising to give up the booze. Often made, but seldom realised.
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.
The EU hears you. What you're really asking for is "more Europe".
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
I will be voting Out. My conception of how a European association would work (I even have a problem with the word 'Union') is so far removed from what the EU has become that there's no conceivable package that Cameron could negotiate that I'd be happy with.
At the end of the day, I simply don't agree with rights and legislation being made for Britain at the international level that we cannot veto, alter, repeal or change according to the ballot box here.
Off topic, am I right in thinking that we are going to be lumbered with PCC elections next May? No local elections in Durham so we might achieve a sub-10% turnout.
Off topic, am I right in thinking that we are going to be lumbered with PCC elections next May? No local elections in Durham so we might achieve a sub-10% turnout.
So why do we need formal legislative or judicial ties with the EU at all beyond those which we have with other friendly countries like Canada? That is my starting point for a discussion of these matters.
We would continue trade links of some type with the countries of the EU whatever happened. I'm simply not convinced that avoiding possible discrimination on the 10-15% of our GDP that is exports to the EU is enough of a reason to do remain in the alphabet soup, especially when that discrimination would be counter-productive to them economically, and could infringe various WTO rules.
If I were in charge of the OUT campaign, I would campaign under the slogan "Not Good Enough", arguing that the terms that David Cameron had negotiated were inadequate and advocate a No vote on the basis that Britain would then have a mandate to trigger its exit clause in order to get the opportunity to negotiate better terms over the following two year period. That way you scoop up not just the headbanging BOOers but also quite a lot of the persuadables who might otherwise not take a leap of faith.
Off topic, am I right in thinking that we are going to be lumbered with PCC elections next May? No local elections in Durham so we might achieve a sub-10% turnout.
If I were in charge of the OUT campaign, I would campaign under the slogan "Not Good Enough", arguing that the terms that David Cameron had negotiated were inadequate and advocate a No vote on the basis that Britain would then have a mandate to trigger its exit clause in order to get the opportunity to negotiate better terms over the following two year period. That way you scoop up not just the headbanging BOOers but also quite a lot of the persuadables who might otherwise not take a leap of faith.
Sounds like a good idea. Antifrank for chairman of NO!
If I were in charge of the OUT campaign, I would campaign under the slogan "Not Good Enough", arguing that the terms that David Cameron had negotiated were inadequate and advocate a No vote on the basis that Britain would then have a mandate to trigger its exit clause in order to get the opportunity to negotiate better terms over the following two year period. That way you scoop up not just the headbanging BOOers but also quite a lot of the persuadables who might otherwise not take a leap of faith.
Lawyers are going to make £bns from an OUT vote. Sadly £bns might not be worth €1, but I am sure there are folk getting ready just in case.
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.
The Civil Service are rabidly pro-EU. I cannot remember the exact quote as the book is in another room. A senior civil servant was quoted many years ago as saying that by the time the British people realise they had been deceived over the true nature of the European project he will be dead.
The Civil Service should think very carefully before interfering as it will only lead to people forever arguing about it being an unfair referendum and not put the issue to bed.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The proposal is to end the relationship. Remaining trading partners is something you do with all and sundry. It's the political equivalent of "let's just be friends".
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The relationship we wish to end is that of increasing political union. Obviously, we'll continue to have a trading relationship.
No one was trying to put Ed Milliband into government.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The relationship we wish to end is that of increasing political union. Obviously, we'll continue to have a trading relationship.
No one was trying to put Ed Milliband into government.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The proposal is to end the relationship. Remaining trading partners is something you do with all and sundry. It's the political equivalent of "let's just be friends".
The EEA is rather more than just a free trade agreement. It sets common external tariffs on a large number of products, and - most importantly - it allows goods to flow around the EU and the EFTA countries without any requirement for paperwork, and with guarantees of minimum interference. This second element is enormously important for businesses with multi-country supply chains. Nissan can run a lean supply chain where it triggers an order to Continental to make tyres to spec less than 30 hours before they're needed in Sunderland. This keeps working capital levels to a minimum and helps Nissan make cars cheaper than anyone else.
There are a lot of businesses that wish to leave EU red tape behind. There are few who wish to substitute new red tape at the border for goods going in or out of the EU.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The proposal is to end the relationship. Remaining trading partners is something you do with all and sundry. It's the political equivalent of "let's just be friends".
It would be like telling an Indian nationalist c. 1940 that there's no point to independence until a detailed blueprint for Indian society post-independence has been agreed.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The relationship we wish to end is that of increasing political union. Obviously, we'll continue to have a trading relationship.
No one was trying to put Ed Milliband into government.
Well about 9.5m were. Sadly too few. Hey ho.
....not sure you are right there. Even Labour voters knew he was a dork, I suspect a good number voted Labour full in the knowledge that he was never going to be PM.
Incidentally, thought Burnham came across quite well on C4 news, emphasising Labour needed to accept tough decisions on spending and be more pro business, while opposing cuts in tax for the rich until a surplus is achieved and excessive benefit cuts. I have reservations about some of his policies like a social care levy, but the idea he is a real leftwinger is offbeam, after all it was Blair who promoted him to Cabinet in the first place
It would be like telling an Indian nationalist c. 1940 that there's no point to independence until a detailed blueprint for Indian society post-independence has been agreed.
Given that, on independence, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and an estimated 14 million were displaced, and the seeds were sown for multiple wars in the decades afterwards, perhaps a bit more planning of the details might not have been a bad idea.
So why do we need formal legislative or judicial ties with the EU at all beyond those which we have with other friendly countries like Canada? That is my starting point for a discussion of these matters.
We would continue trade links of some type with the countries of the EU whatever happened. I'm simply not convinced that avoiding possible discrimination on the 10-15% of our GDP that is exports to the EU is enough of a reason to do remain in the alphabet soup, especially when that discrimination would be counter-productive to them economically, and could infringe various WTO rules.
As far as tariffs go, leaving the EU (whether or not we joined the EEA) would have essentially no impact on our terms of trade. We would have a free trade agreement with the EU, and we would almost certainly piggyback on agreements such as TTIP. Furthermore, almost all trade negotiations (with the exception of some of the mega trading bloc-to-trading bloc deals) are done under the auspices of the WTO, and we would "come along for the ride".
As such, arguments by In-ers and Out-ers that we would have better terms of trade if we were members of the EU, or that we were independent, are largely specious. We would almost certainly have exactly the same terms of trade.
The only difference - realistically - that would have any impact on the UK economy would be in the event we left the EEA and that would be on those businesses that run lean multinational supply chains.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The proposal is to end the relationship. Remaining trading partners is something you do with all and sundry. It's the political equivalent of "let's just be friends".
It would be like telling an Indian nationalist c. 1940 that there's no point to independence until a detailed blueprint for Indian society post-independence has been agreed.
Do you think that the average Briton really feels as if they are chafing under the yoke of a Euro-Raj? For Out to win, it has to start behaving as if it is dealing with scabies, not syphilis.
Why bother to get bogged down in small print? If you're in a bad relationship you end it. You don't agonise over the alternative.
But there's no proposal to end it. The proposal is to stomp out after having a series of rows about immigration and regulation and the ECHR, and then return asking for a trade agreement which would reinstate nearly all the things you'd stomped out over.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
The proposal is to end the relationship. Remaining trading partners is something you do with all and sundry. It's the political equivalent of "let's just be friends".
It would be like telling an Indian nationalist c. 1940 that there's no point to independence until a detailed blueprint for Indian society post-independence has been agreed.
I'm not sure that's a great analogy given what happened post independence.
Sepp Blatter 2/5 to see out his latest term of Presidency; 7/4 not to.
7/4 looks fair.
Given his age, and the amount of wine and rich, fat-laden food he must stuff into his corrupt maw, there must be a reasonable chance he'll end up leaving FIFA in a box. Stressful job, too.
It would be like telling an Indian nationalist c. 1940 that there's no point to independence until a detailed blueprint for Indian society post-independence has been agreed.
Given that, on independence, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and an estimated 14 million were displaced, and the seeds were sown for multiple wars in the decades afterwards, perhaps a bit more planning of the details might not have been a bad idea.
At the end of the day, I simply don't agree with rights and legislation being made for Britain at the international level that we cannot veto, alter, repeal or change according to the ballot box here.
Rights and legislation at the International (WTO) level is fine, if this is including both the USA and China.
These at the European level are a no-go. They are either protectionist or idealist/environmentalist in nature, and harm not only our trade with the rest of the world, but increase costs on our own production.
Why depressing Jonathan? Serious question. I had always considered you an 'IN' person so would have thought that the uphill struggle being faced by 'OUT' would have perhaps lightened your mood a little :-)
Leader for Out is obvious - step forward Mr Ed Balls. He's a familiar face, a bruiser, an economist and now completely unconstrained by Labour parliamentary politics. Many on the Right have always had a sneaking regard for him, and the far-Left wouldn't mind too much because, though a moderate, he was clearly no Blairite. It's an excellent idea. I'm going to give him a call and suggest it.
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.
As usual,OAPs will dominate the voting..
OAPs don't do leaps in the dark.
Surely, OAPs are (just about) the only people for whom it won't be a leap in the dark.
It seems easily possible to me that, as with that debate in HoC (was it Syria?) Mr Cameron may quite suddenly lose patience with the EU negotiators, tell them "OK then have it your own way", turn on a sixpence , and end up recommending OUT.
@Richard_Tyndall - 'Veto' is the wrong the word, and highly misleading (although I accept that it's not your word). A veto would mean that an EEA member could prevent the EU from doing something, but that's not the case. Norway has not vetoed and can not veto the Postal Services Directive, can it? It claimed it can opt out of implementing it in Norway, which is not the same thing. Even that doesn't seem to be the case, since the Norwegian government, under pressure from the EU, is now in the process of implementing it.
In practice it's not very different from the situation where an EU member state refuses to implement something, which happens from time to time.
The bottom line is that EEA membership would not give the kind of freedom of action which people who vote UKIP and/or are keen to leave the EU want. In particular it would have virtually no effect on immigration. An Out campaign based on the proposition that nothing much would change on immigration is a non-starter, I'd have thought.
Actually according to the EEA Agreement if one EFTA country formally vetoes a piece of legislation then it is removed entirely from the Agreement and does not apply to any of the EFTA countries although clearly it would continue to apply to the EU. Since has happened so rarely and related to such limited examples, no one is quite sure what the effect of the negation of the specific piece of legislation would be. It is an area that might provide some 'interesting' outcomes (in the Chinese sense)
"Once the organisation and leadership are in place the emphasis needs to be on looking forward not back."
Richard, I know what you're saying but did you see Portillo on This Week last night? He said he didn't want the referendum but now that we have it he will vote to leave on the basis that a vote to stay in could be seen as giving future leaders the mandate to give away more powers without consulting the electorate.
I'd have thought that's something the Yes campaign will have to shut down pretty quickly. Surely the vote we're having is about the here and now? That is, were we about to vote on a new Treaty giving more powers to the EU I suspect we'd be expecting No to win comfortably.
I get the sense that you're quite pessimistic about the chances of a No vote, but I think that's because you want it more than most of us who will vote No. Personally I'm quite content at this stage. All the pressure seems to be on the Yes campaign and in particular Cameron's ability to get significant reforms. I have no idea whether he will or not - though I'm sure he'll claim to have whatever happens - but I think it's going to be quite a lot closer than many are expecting.
BBC’s online television service has enjoyed years of successful growth But viewing figures plummeted by 72million a month from high last year Many stopped using service as much after BBC axed Jeremy Clarkson Experts said that iPlayer’s popularity is waning thanks to stiff competition from Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant Video and other streaming services
THE BBC needs its entire library or pretty much anything worth watching on I player. For years they stiffed us with 7 days so we missed stuff, now the world has moved on and the BBC is offering 12 months.
There needs to be a dual service, one for LCD and one with the good stuff.
Why depressing Jonathan? Serious question. I had always considered you an 'IN' person so would have thought that the uphill struggle being faced by 'OUT' would have perhaps lightened your mood a little :-)
Hi Richard!
To be clear I think it's a really good piece and I am behind anyone 100% who has the balls to put their thoughts up here to be shot down. Well done!
I simply find it depressing because this EU debate, which will dominate for the next two years, is a long way from the politics that gets me excited. It is inherently backward looking.
The idea that Westminster is some paragon of democratic virtue is absurd. The current parliament is the worst and arguably the least representative I can remember.
There you go see. My first article and I have broken PB :-(
We're just awestruck, Richard
Also struck by the dawning realisation that EU referendum coverage will make the Indyref look like a story of page 12 of the Barnsley Gazette.
You reckon? Although I'm delighted to be getting my chance to vote on our membership of the EU, I'm not sure it's quite as big as the Scottish Independence vote.
What do you think turn out will be? The Scotland vote got 84.59% according to Wikipedia.
I'm looking forward to a pretty sensible if passionate debate about the pros and cons - and not the ridiculous SIndy discussions on here with cybernats claiming everything was up to them and everything they wanted, they'd get.
@Richard_Tyndall article was a fine example of posing the issues without treating it like a cult.
Sepp Blatter - I doubt there's a dodgier man on the planet.
ACLB?
I've no idea what you mean. "A Clever Libelous Bollocks Post?"
ACLB = Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Ah!
No I don't think Blair is particularly dodgy. He just deludes himself into doing things that happen to benefit himself, and I'm pretty sure people know that and have manipulated him on that basis. I imagine that he sees himself as a very moral man that always try to do the right thing. I think I might quite like Blair if I met him. Compare him with Gordo, whose motivation was simply power and preening, and I'd have Blair any day.
I'm looking forward to a pretty sensible if passionate debate about the pros and cons - and not the ridiculous SIndy discussions on here with cybernats claiming everything was up to them and everything they wanted, they'd get.
@Richard_Tyndall article was a fine example of posing the issues without treating it like a cult.
Interesting article on page 3 of today's Times about the way in which the British Library is being taken over by students wanting somewhere nice to revise for their exams which has comfortable seats and fast WiFi. So many of them are going there that there's not much room left for the sort of researchers the library is supposed to be for.
ESPN had wall to wall coverage of the FIFA leadership election, which was incredible. Except for the events of last Wednesday the event would have gotten a line on the crawler at best.
Comments
Shame they elected the scumbag again though. Come on UEFA, your time is now.
And whilst the ECJ only adjudicates on EU members, there is a parallel court - the EFTA Court which can adjudicate on similar matters where EFTA members are also involved in addition to EU members. There is no reason to believe that a decision from the EFTA court - which is usually taken into account by the ECJ when reaching decisions - would have been any different.
"The EFTA Court has in the majority of its cases been faced with legal issues that have not or not fully been decided by the ECJ. The EEA Agreement does not contain a written rule that would oblige the ECJ to take into account the case law of the EFTA Court when interpreting EU or EEA law. In practice, both Union Courts (the ECJ and the EGC), have, however, made reference to EFTA Court jurisprudence. As to the interpretation of EEA law, the Union courts reverted to judgments by the EFTA Court with regard to the legal nature of the EEA Agreement, the principle of State liability in EEA law, the free movement of goods and the freedom of establishment."
Interesting that Prince Ali talked about people being 'brave enough' to support him.
[kle4 has probably just predicted the future with some accuracy]
CON 284 MPs, LAB 263, LIBS 31, SNP 48, UKIP 2, PLAID 3, GREEN 1
He has failed to get a Westminster seat; failed to head off a referendum that he knows he'll lose; failed to be the obvious face of the No campaign; and failed to achieve anything whatsoever in Strasbourg.
PONWAL.
#BOOM
In practice it's not very different from the situation where an EU member state refuses to implement something, which happens from time to time.
The bottom line is that EEA membership would not give the kind of freedom of action which people who vote UKIP and/or are keen to leave the EU want. In particular it would have virtually no effect on immigration. An Out campaign based on the proposition that nothing much would change on immigration is a non-starter, I'd have thought.
With the captain who didn't notice his navigator was taking it out into a squall, or told him to do so.
28/08/2013 Single To Win
7.01 - 8.00% @ 2/1
UK Unemployment
UK Unemployment Rate On 1st June 2015 £5.00 Pending
I think YES will likely win, but either way the post referendum landscape renders much of the debate FPT premature, as UKIP and the Eurosceptics from the other parties come to terms with defeat. Will UKIP surge like the SNP or will it collapse, whatever the result.
Plus development funding (if you think that's appropriate) is easier, since it would other require a transfer from UEFA to other regions.
But, must be off. I am sure my dislike of Fifa will remain for the future.
An interesting and thought-provoking piece from Richard T, for which many thanks. The corollary of his analysis is that IN needs to offer reasons to stay above and beyond a message based on fear and confusion. It isn't enough for IN to frighten people into voting YES, there has to be as positive a vision of Britain's future within the EU as the OUT campaign will paint of Britain's future outside the EU (whether in the EEA or not).
At the moment, the crux of the IN message is "don't worry, trust Dave" and one of the key factors behind the Conservative success three weeks ago must have been the number of people who voted not for the Conservatives but for David Cameron who proved himself able (though not quite to the same extent as Thatcher and Blair) to reach out beyond the Conservative core vote.
Again, this works until and unless the Prime Minister's aura of authority and competence is undermined and those disillusioned with the Government see a vote against the Prime Minister as a main method of protest. To imagine this Government not suffering some form of midterm slump in support is naive but how and whether this coincides with the EU Referendum is the key question.
Likewise, to assume that all pro-EU supporters can be assumed to be YES voters is unwise - those who actively like and support the EU ideal (and they do exist for all the ridicule they receive) also need convincing that Cameron isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater and creating a non-membership membership in which Britain sits on the sidelines and opts out of everything.
Final thought - if FAs don't break away very quickly, nothing will probably happen. Despite a quote from the head of the Irish FA talking about it being a stretch to think about radical solutions at the moment, if now is not the time, it never will be unless Blatter himself is arrested down the line.
He is part of the problem not the solution.
Sepp Blatter 2/5 to see out his latest term of Presidency; 7/4 not to.
7/4 looks fair.
An excellent thread Mr Tyndall. – I despair at the BOO’s sorry effort so far and the total lack of even the most basic requirements for a unified campaign to get off the ground – when it eventually does, I hope you are called upon to help out in some capacity.
And will the YES campaign adopt the name 'Better Together'?
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2015/5/29/1432896163957/Jack-Warner-007.jpg
Surely his wrists will develop a nasty reaction to steel
No doubt once we've had a Europhile version of this thread, I'll drift back in the direction of OUT.
This is a really tricky dilemma for the Out side. As Richard T correctly observes in his article, the Out side has to counter the 'scaremongering' over jobs and prosperity; his solution of buying straight back in to the EEA might indeed go some way towards doing so, but at the expense of nullifying the main reasons people want to leave.
I've been saying for several years that the Out side needed to get its act together and come up with a serious and coherent plan, rather than putting its efforts into a counter-productive attempt to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Instead, I think we will see a period of squabbling over what the alternative to staying In should be.
I will be voting Out. My conception of how a European association would work (I even have a problem with the word 'Union') is so far removed from what the EU has become that there's no conceivable package that Cameron could negotiate that I'd be happy with.
At the end of the day, I simply don't agree with rights and legislation being made for Britain at the international level that we cannot veto, alter, repeal or change according to the ballot box here.
We would continue trade links of some type with the countries of the EU whatever happened. I'm simply not convinced that avoiding possible discrimination on the 10-15% of our GDP that is exports to the EU is enough of a reason to do remain in the alphabet soup, especially when that discrimination would be counter-productive to them economically, and could infringe various WTO rules.
Antifrank for chairman of NO!
@politicshome
Legal bid launched to oust @acarmichaelmp: http://polho.me/1FkiXj5 pic.twitter.com/xd0YKmQT4w
The Civil Service should think very carefully before interfering as it will only lead to people forever arguing about it being an unfair referendum and not put the issue to bed.
No one was trying to put Ed Milliband into government.
There are a lot of businesses that wish to leave EU red tape behind. There are few who wish to substitute new red tape at the border for goods going in or out of the EU.
Incidentally, thought Burnham came across quite well on C4 news, emphasising Labour needed to accept tough decisions on spending and be more pro business, while opposing cuts in tax for the rich until a surplus is achieved and excessive benefit cuts. I have reservations about some of his policies like a social care levy, but the idea he is a real leftwinger is offbeam, after all it was Blair who promoted him to Cabinet in the first place
As such, arguments by In-ers and Out-ers that we would have better terms of trade if we were members of the EU, or that we were independent, are largely specious. We would almost certainly have exactly the same terms of trade.
The only difference - realistically - that would have any impact on the UK economy would be in the event we left the EEA and that would be on those businesses that run lean multinational supply chains.
Any actuaries out there?
These at the European level are a no-go. They are either protectionist or idealist/environmentalist in nature, and harm not only our trade with the rest of the world, but increase costs on our own production.
Have you thought of applying for the job?
:-)
See what I did there?
It seems easily possible to me that, as with that debate in HoC (was it Syria?) Mr Cameron may quite suddenly lose patience with the EU negotiators, tell them "OK then have it your own way", turn on a sixpence , and end up recommending OUT.
Richard, I know what you're saying but did you see Portillo on This Week last night? He said he didn't want the referendum but now that we have it he will vote to leave on the basis that a vote to stay in could be seen as giving future leaders the mandate to give away more powers without consulting the electorate.
I'd have thought that's something the Yes campaign will have to shut down pretty quickly. Surely the vote we're having is about the here and now? That is, were we about to vote on a new Treaty giving more powers to the EU I suspect we'd be expecting No to win comfortably.
I get the sense that you're quite pessimistic about the chances of a No vote, but I think that's because you want it more than most of us who will vote No. Personally I'm quite content at this stage. All the pressure seems to be on the Yes campaign and in particular Cameron's ability to get significant reforms. I have no idea whether he will or not - though I'm sure he'll claim to have whatever happens - but I think it's going to be quite a lot closer than many are expecting.
Also struck by the dawning realisation that EU referendum coverage will make the Indyref look like a story of page 12 of the Barnsley Gazette.
There needs to be a dual service, one for LCD and one with the good stuff.
To be clear I think it's a really good piece and I am behind anyone 100% who has the balls to put their thoughts up here to be shot down. Well done!
I simply find it depressing because this EU debate, which will dominate for the next two years, is a long way from the politics that gets me excited. It is inherently backward looking.
The idea that Westminster is some paragon of democratic virtue is absurd. The current parliament is the worst and arguably the least representative I can remember.
What do you think turn out will be? The Scotland vote got 84.59% according to Wikipedia.
@Richard_Tyndall article was a fine example of posing the issues without treating it like a cult.
Ah!
No I don't think Blair is particularly dodgy. He just deludes himself into doing things that happen to benefit himself, and I'm pretty sure people know that and have manipulated him on that basis. I imagine that he sees himself as a very moral man that always try to do the right thing. I think I might quite like Blair if I met him. Compare him with Gordo, whose motivation was simply power and preening, and I'd have Blair any day.