Mr. Thompson, one's a country. And many ideologically driven supporters of the EU seek to equate it with Europe or 'good Europe'. It's entirely possible to be pro-Europe (and pro-bilateral/multilateral agreements with European countries) whilst being against the EU. Because the EU is not Europe, and Europe is not the EU.
The fact that the USA is a country does not make it a continent. The USA is not the continent of America but America in common parlance is still the USA and not Canada or the continent. Try calling a Canadian an American and see how far you get.
Similarly Europe in common parlance now means the EU and not the continent. That is just linguistics, not being a numpty.
Mr. Antifrank, it surprises you that many people who voted Conservative are sceptical of the EU?
No, I'm more surprised that the Europhobes think that it's somehow unfair that the Prime Minister should be popular and influential, and that this somehow invalidates the referendum.
Not seen any Europhobes around here. Who are you talking about? Mind you plenty of self serving Euro-fanatics aren't there Antifrank. How are your vested interests in the EU these days?
I haven't yet decided which way I'll vote in the referendum. Have you?
What on earth is there to decide. Whatever Dave comes up with , it would be madness to leave the EU.
There you go... decision made for you.
Why?
Britain is a significant global economy, with trading links internationally and a huge base of talented individuals.
Being in the EU has meaningful advantages, but it also has serious costs. The direction of travel is towards more integration of the core Eurozone and, as a result, it is imperative that adequate mechanisms are put in place to protect the interests of the "non-Eurozone" countries.
Failing that, there is a strong argument that we would be better off charting our own future as a friendly but independent partner to the Eurozone.
I think the reality is that we're already to intertwined with the EU to be able to leave it in a risk free manner. For example, many City firms are dependent on the EU financial services passports to operate across the EU, should we leave they would need to relocate their head offices into an EU country.
Why would the Eurozone take any different approach to the UK leaving the EU, as the rUK did around Scotland. The rUK seemed minded to peruse a scorched earth policy, why would our rejection of the EU project meet any different response from the EU. The EU leaders are all smiles at the moment as they want to keep us In, however should it become apparent we are on our way out many of our " friends " will be anything other than friendly. For example, a UK EU exit, where would that leave our 1.5 million retirees in France and Spain, healthcare etc ?
I'll be voting to stay in, is the EU perfect - no, it's a basket case - but it's a basket we helped create and without it I fear we would be starting to build our own basket.
Mr. Thompson, I disagree. Some wants us to equate the EU with Europe and want language to reflect that, but that is not the case. If I go on holiday to Switzerland, is it a European holiday?
He certainly is, however I'd sum up his brand as more Maverick = David vs Goliath. For those of us old enough, we remember Virgin Records, his battles with BA et al.
What is he nowadays? A handsome beardy in a jumper who tries to fly tourists into space.
I think we can mistake his anti-establishment persona with credibility. He's got media chops - but I doubt how many would be too persuaded by him that weren't already Inners.
I've lost track of David Cameron's ground rules, but as we're now in the EU renegotiation, as Boris seems to be breaking away from collective Cabinet responsibility, should Cameron not be sacking him tomorrow ?
Could the budget see some divisions between the 'One Nation' Cameron and the more 'hawkish' and Thatcherite Osborne asks Andrew Rawnsley. The PM is likely to prefer that the Chancellor's spending cuts are moderated a little through higher tax receipts and slashing tax credits while cutting the top tax rate for the rich back to 40% could also undermine Cameron's 'compassionate conservatism'. The PM will be looking at his legacy, the Chancellor at pleasing the Tory Party and ensuring his succession
It is becoming rather tedious pointing out to Cameron haters on PB that whatever deal he returns with will be presented to the populace..who will then decide..it has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal choice which will amount to one single vote.
I know others have answered this but I have to add to how silly it is. I like Cameron and as pm his view on something has even greater weight, and as split as they are he leads as large section of a political tribe which will follow his view closely perhaps despite some misgivings.
Personally I just don't think he is able to get enough from the other leaders to make it worth it, but others might if they trust him enough.
I'm surprised how many on both sides seem so keen to pre-judge any deal before its made or even worse seem to have zero confidence in the ability to of their countrymen to tell the difference.
In this modern era of the internet and 24/7 news etc any deal will be micro-analysed to death. Nobody will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public as a whole. If any deal is a sham it will be revealed as such within days not years.
Why? It has already been made clear that what he is asking for as a maximum is not enough to satisfy even the minimum for most Eurosceptics so why should you be surprised that we reject it? Even the EU was surprised at how little Cameron was asking for after all his big words about substantial renegotiation.
That's not what I'm saying. You can say "well that's not enough, so no thanks" and that I respect. Disagree with you, but respect you.
What many (not you personally) keep saying here and elsewhere is that whatever Cameron will bring back will be a "sham" or a "lie" or "mutton dressed as lamb" etc which could "trick" the public into voting yes. I don't think that the public are that gullible, I think that the public (like you) will be capable if they care to figure out what exactly is on offer and judge it. If what's on offer is masked as something its not, then that will unravel spectacularly before the referendum.
I've lost track of David Cameron's ground rules, but as we're now in the EU renegotiation, as Boris seems to be breaking away from collective Cabinet responsibility, should Cameron not be sacking him tomorrow ?
I think we are about to get a vivid demonstration in the next 48-72 hours of what happens when a country leaves the euro and ergo the EU. Are there any bets on whether Greece's government might be overthrown by a revolution or a coup?
Mr. Calum, not sure, I think Boris attends Cabinet but doesn't have any responsibility (deliberate grey area so he's included but doesn't have a proper job whilst also being mayor).
Scott P Yougov had a Eurotrack poll last week showing that while a majority of Germans wanted 'Grexit' along with a plurality of Finns, Danes and Swedes (and indeed Brits and Norwegians), a small plurality of French voters wanted Greece to stay in the eurozone suggesting northern Europeans want them to leave, southern Europeans to stay
Mr. Thompson, I disagree. Some wants us to equate the EU with Europe and want language to reflect that, but that is not the case. If I go on holiday to Switzerland, is it a European holiday?
Yes in exactly the same way as going on holiday to Canada is an American holiday.
I think we are about to get a vivid demonstration in the next 48-72 hours of what happens when a country leaves the euro and ergo the EU. Are there any bets on whether Greece's government might be overthrown by a revolution or a coup?
Scott P Yougov had a Eurotrack poll last week showing that while a majority of Germans wanted 'Grexit' along with a plurality of Finns, Danes and Swedes (and indeed Brits and Norwegians), a small plurality of French voters wanted Greece to stay in the eurozone suggesting northern Europeans want them to leave, southern Europeans to stay
It is becoming rather tedious pointing out to Cameron haters on PB that whatever deal he returns with will be presented to the populace..who will then decide..it has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal choice which will amount to one single vote.
I know others have answered this but I have to add to how silly it is. I like Cameron and as pm his view on something has even greater weight, and as split as they are he leads as large section of a political tribe which will follow his view closely perhaps despite some misgivings.
Personally I just don't think he is able to get enough from the other leaders to make it worth it, but others might if they trust him enough.
I'm surprised how many on both sides seem so keen to pre-judge any deal before its made or even worse seem to have zero confidence in the ability to of their countrymen to tell the difference.
In this modern era of the internet and 24/7 news etc any deal will be micro-analysed to death. Nobody will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public as a whole. If any deal is a sham it will be revealed as such within days not years.
I believe the public will be able to tell. I've only recently switched from in to out and voted ld at the last euros but felt ukip were very pessimistic about people being fooled that any deal would be substantive and that a Cameron led referendum campaigning for in meant out had no chance. I think out has a chance to win.
As for prejudging a deal, if it is in actuality a great deal I could be persuaded back to in, but on the probabilities given the disdain of the bureaucrats and the lukewarm reaction from many of the other nations what is wrong with taking a view that a major deal us unlikely? It might be proven wrong but is not unreasonable to expect it either. Nor for an inner taking a view either.
Most are leaning heavily one way or another but that's not quite . prejudging as some will still change depending on the deal.
I think we are about to get a vivid demonstration in the next 48-72 hours of what happens when a country leaves the euro and ergo the EU. Are there any bets on whether Greece's government might be overthrown by a revolution or a coup?
If the age profile of the population of Southern Europe was as youthful today as it was 50 years ago, I think the whole region would be as volatile as the Middle East, after what they've been put through.
We have a major trade deficit with the EU because the members of it make lots of things we want, whether it is German cars or French and Spanish wine, and, unfortunately, the reverse is not so true. We sell them financial services and increasingly legal service but the balance clearly favours them and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future unless we find a new North sea.
What this has to do with our membership of the EU I am really not sure. We would surely be aiming for a free trade zone with the EU anyway so I don't see what would change so far as trade is concerned.
A free trade zone can only work when there are agreements about subsidies etc between the participants so we could not expect to keep it and then look to subsidise wine production in the south of England (for example) so it could undercut those we are trading with. It is for this reason members of the EEA have to comply with the free trade regulations and I don't see that changing either.
Our concern is that the market rules of the EU might continue to be shaped in a way that favours the other members and not us. So, for example, the free trade of goods is far more established and comprehensive than it is for services which is our main area of strength. There are also subsidies like the CAP, even in its much reformed state, where we lose far more than we gain. There is also an hostility to the red in tooth and claw capitalism of the City which is regarded as dangerous and destabilising, especially after 2008. This tends the EU to being more restrictive than we want to be given London's place in the world market.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
Mr. Thompson, I just said they're different cases.
Are you really saying you'd correct someone who said they were on a European tour with visits to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, telling them they weren't actually in Europe?
The most urgent reason to reform the EU right now is that we have an open door to a million refugees from a region that is the hub of the terrorists who want to kill us. They've already said they intend to flood Europe with their men via Libya and Italy. Why wait for it to happen?
Yesterday people were talking about closing down mosques but I think that would just stir up internal strife and make enemies out of moderates. Better to have a six month total ban on any immigration and check every car and lorry that comes to every port. Perhaps a siege mentality but IMO that is what's needed
Mr. Antifrank, it surprises you that many people who voted Conservative are sceptical of the EU?
No, I'm more surprised that the Europhobes think that it's somehow unfair that the Prime Minister should be popular and influential, and that this somehow invalidates the referendum.
Not seen any Europhobes around here. Who are you talking about? Mind you plenty of self serving Euro-fanatics aren't there Antifrank. How are your vested interests in the EU these days?
I haven't yet decided which way I'll vote in the referendum. Have you?
What on earth is there to decide. Whatever Dave comes up with , it would be madness to leave the EU.
There you go... decision made for you.
Why?
Britain is a significant global economy, with trading links internationally and a huge base of talented individuals.
Being in the EU has meaningful advantages, but it also has serious costs. The direction of travel is towards more integration of the core Eurozone and, as a result, it is imperative that adequate mechanisms are put in place to protect the interests of the "non-Eurozone" countries.
Failing that, there is a strong argument that we would be better off charting our own future as a friendly but independent partner to the Eurozone.
but we wouldn't be a friendly partner. If we left, the loathing and hatred would go on for centuries !!
Bold statement. Please back it up.
Countries are the definition of pragmatic.
You are right of course, the point its the dislike would go on for centuries.. eg France.
I think that's a fundamental misreading of the situation. At the moment, Greece has the choice of chaos and misery inside the EZ, or worse chaos and misery outside the EZ. Actually, that may not even be true now as if the ECB has turned off the tap, they have lost option 1.
I think, although I'm guessing a bit as I don't know much about Greece's exact situation (it's been quite carefully hidden, I suspect) that this crisis will now go one of two ways:
1) Greece defaults and leaves the Euro. Very unpleasant for the Greeks and some of their weaker neighbours e.g. Cyprus. Not too serious for the rest who have wisely limited their exposure and the EZ carries on as before. However, those countries that want to stay in the Eurozone now make a serious effort to sort out their economies with the vivid example of Greece to spur them on, while those that don't make their own preparations to leave (I know of no countries in the latter group and if my suspicions about the implications for Greece are right, it's hard to see any going for this voluntarily even if they grumble a bit). If the second option, it will likely torpedo any chance Cameron has of screwing concessions out of the EU, incidentally.
2) We suddenly find out that an awful lot of banks around the world are sitting on debts linked to Greece or other suspect economies. Interbank lending freezes in a heartbeat and we have Lehmann Brothers magnified a thousandfold. Every single other economy reliant on borrowing - many in the third world, but not by any means all - collapses into chaos. The EU's weaker members panic and need even more emergency funding. Under such circumstances, the EU will have the choice of full political integration more or less on the fly or a cataclysmic collapse without precedent since the sack of Rome and the collapse of the redoubt at Ravenna in 476.
Neither option looks terribly attractive. I suspect history will be most severe on those idiots who rewrote their own rules repeatedly to allow the Euro to start with members who did not meet strict criteria - i.e. all of them except Luxembourg.
Mr. Thompson, I just said they're different cases.
Are you really saying you'd correct someone who said they were on a European tour with visits to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, telling them they weren't actually in Europe?
No, nor would I correct someone who said they were on an American tour with visits to Mexicu, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, telling them they weren't actually in America.
But I wouldn't call someone "an ideologically driven numpty" either for using America as a euphemism for the USA or Europe as a euphemism for the European Union. That sort of inconsistent pedantry serves no purpose.
I think the reality is that we're already to intertwined with the EU to be able to leave it in a risk free manner. For example, many City firms are dependent on the EU financial services passports to operate across the EU, should we leave they would need to relocate their head offices into an EU country.
Why would the Eurozone take any different approach to the UK leaving the EU, as the rUK did around Scotland. The rUK seemed minded to peruse a scorched earth policy, why would our rejection of the EU project meet any different response from the EU. The EU leaders are all smiles at the moment as they want to keep us In, however should it become apparent we are on our way out many of our " friends " will be anything other than friendly. For example, a UK EU exit, where would that leave our 1.5 million retirees in France and Spain, healthcare etc ?
I'll be voting to stay in, is the EU perfect - no, it's a basket case - but it's a basket we helped create and without it I fear we would be starting to build our own basket.
rUK was never going to pursue a scorched earth approach to iScot. That was just the media being silly. It would have been a tough negotiation, but one designed to achieve a fair balance between two parties. I would expect the same for the EU.
Passporting is an issue, but increasingly we are seeing financial services refocus on national territories - and don't forget that EU firms want access to London as well. Of course we've already seen the French try to use the Eurozone rules, eg on clearing, to try and advantage their own interests so it is by no means a perfect set up at the moment.
And financial services is a global business. For example, I am working on a project at the moment for a US firm operating in the Far East. The only part of the transaction that touches London is me - but that is where the fees will end up...
Mr. Antifrank, it surprises you that many people who voted Conservative are sceptical of the EU?
No, I'm more surprised that the Europhobes think that it's somehow unfair that the Prime Minister should be popular and influential, and that this somehow invalidates the referendum.
Not seen any Europhobes around here. Who are you talking about? Mind you plenty of self serving Euro-fanatics aren't there Antifrank. How are your vested interests in the EU these days?
I haven't yet decided which way I'll vote in the referendum. Have you?
What might prompt you to vote No?
If the EU shows no interest in reaching a stable accommodation in the EU with states which do not wish to follow EU route A, we should leave and seek an arrangement from the outside. They would be daft to follow such a tack on their own partisan interest, but they seem to be thinking carefully about being daft.
This is essentially how I feel, but I disagree that EU leaders are "daft" to follow Route A. It has not been an accidental trend, it has been the direction of travel precisely because it was the point (as originally envisaged) of the EU and its predecessor organisations, and is still the settled will of the core EU nations. Their assumption that everyone else can be pretty much dragged along with them has rarely been incorrect and Britain looks more and more like the biggest misfit in the room - someone who has been invited to the wrong party, is too reluctant to "get into the spirit of things", and who is too big to stay quietly and ignorably in a corner of the room while everyone else gets on with it. It might be unpragmatic for the EU to fail to recognise the need for an inner/outer distinction, but it isn't illogical, because Two Speed Europe wasn't the underlying purpose of the project.
I saw a report earlier this week that as of Dec 2014, 30% of EU TOTAL empty housing was in Spain following waves of incomplete/unsold building projects, evictions etc.
I think we are about to get a vivid demonstration in the next 48-72 hours of what happens when a country leaves the euro and ergo the EU. Are there any bets on whether Greece's government might be overthrown by a revolution or a coup?
If the age profile of the population of Southern Europe was as youthful today as it was 50 years ago, I think the whole region would be as volatile as the Middle East, after what they've been put through.
We have a major trade deficit with the EU because the members of it make lots of things we want, whether it is German cars or French and Spanish wine, and, unfortunately, the reverse is not so true. We sell them financial services and increasingly legal service but the balance clearly favours them and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future unless we find a new North sea.
What this has to do with our membership of the EU I am really not sure. We would surely be aiming for a free trade zone with the EU anyway so I don't see what would change so far as trade is concerned.
A free trade zone can only work when there are agreements about subsidies etc between the participants so we could not expect to keep it and then look to subsidise wine production in the south of England (for example) so it could undercut those we are trading with. It is for this reason members of the EEA have to comply with the free trade regulations and I don't see that changing either.
Our concern is that the market rules of the EU might continue to be shaped in a way that favours the other members and not us. So, for example, the free trade of goods is far more established and comprehensive than it is for services which is our main area of strength. There are also subsidies like the CAP, even in its much reformed state, where we lose far more than we gain. There is also an hostility to the red in tooth and claw capitalism of the City which is regarded as dangerous and destabilising, especially after 2008. This tends the EU to being more restrictive than we want to be given London's place in the world market.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EEA would give you that David. You should not believe the rubbish about EEA having no influence over the rules of the free market. They have complete parity in everthing up to the final deal and then, unlike the UK inside the EU, if they don't like that final deal because it is against their fundamental interests, they have the right of veto.
The EEA option is far better than the deal we currently have with the EU.
Mr. Thompson, I disagree. Some wants us to equate the EU with Europe and want language to reflect that, but that is not the case. If I go on holiday to Switzerland, is it a European holiday?
Yes in exactly the same way as going on holiday to Canada is an American holiday.
Mr. Antifrank, it surprises you that many people who voted Conservative are sceptical of the EU?
No, I'm more surprised that the Europhobes think that it's somehow unfair that the Prime Minister should be popular and influential, and that this somehow invalidates the referendum.
Not seen any Europhobes around here. Who are you talking about? Mind you plenty of self serving Euro-fanatics aren't there Antifrank. How are your vested interests in the EU these days?
I haven't yet decided which way I'll vote in the referendum. Have you?
What on earth is there to decide. Whatever Dave comes up with , it would be madness to leave the EU.
There you go... decision made for you.
Why?
Britain is a significant global economy, with trading links internationally and a huge base of talented individuals.
Being in the EU has meaningful advantages, but it also has serious costs. The direction of travel is towards more integration of the core Eurozone and, as a result, it is imperative that adequate mechanisms are put in place to protect the interests of the "non-Eurozone" countries.
Failing that, there is a strong argument that we would be better off charting our own future as a friendly but independent partner to the Eurozone.
but we wouldn't be a friendly partner. If we left, the loathing and hatred would go on for centuries !!
Bold statement. Please back it up.
Countries are the definition of pragmatic.
You are right of course, the point its the dislike would go on for centuries.. eg France.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
@nigel4england Coups/revolutions do not need to have 'powerful figureheads.' The Tsar and the Kaiser both lost power even when it was far from clear who would replace them. The Chinese Empire fell in 1912 and was not really replaced for 15 years (arguably 37 years) with a series of local bandits managing their own affairs. If the government is perceived to be to blame, it could well be forcibly overthrown by e.g. any mid-ranking army officer ruthless enough to act and able to find enough troops to support him (cf. Egypt).
And @Morris_Dancer yes - I do not now see any way Greece can remain in the Euro/EU if this report is accurate (I added that rider for an obvious reason). I think with only 48 hours to what is pretty well certain default, and this referendum after that deadline, even if the EU panics and relents it will be too late because without printing money the whole economic system will literally collapse entirely.
It is becoming rather tedious pointing out to Cameron haters on PB that whatever deal he returns with will be presented to the populace..who will then decide..it has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal choice which will amount to one single vote.
I know others have answered this but I have to add to how silly it is. I like Cameron and as pm his view on something has even greater weight, and as split as they are he leads as large section of a political tribe which will follow his view closely perhaps despite some misgivings.
Personally I just don't think he is able to get enough from the other leaders to make it worth it, but others might if they trust him enough.
I'm surprised how many on both sides seem so keen to pre-judge any deal before its made or even worse seem to have zero confidence in the ability to of their countrymen to tell the difference.
In this modern era of the internet and 24/7 news etc any deal will be micro-analysed to death. Nobody will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public as a whole. If any deal is a sham it will be revealed as such within days not years.
Why? It has already been made clear that what he is asking for as a maximum is not enough to satisfy even the minimum for most Eurosceptics so why should you be surprised that we reject it? Even the EU was surprised at how little Cameron was asking for after all his big words about substantial renegotiation.
That's not what I'm saying. You can say "well that's not enough, so no thanks" and that I respect. Disagree with you, but respect you.
What many (not you personally) keep saying here and elsewhere is that whatever Cameron will bring back will be a "sham" or a "lie" or "mutton dressed as lamb" etc which could "trick" the public into voting yes. I don't think that the public are that gullible, I think that the public (like you) will be capable if they care to figure out what exactly is on offer and judge it. If what's on offer is masked as something its not, then that will unravel spectacularly before the referendum.
I would like to think you are right Phil but the polls seem to tell a different story when it comes to the influence Cameron's recommendation has on people. Maybe the polls just aren't asking the right question.
Mr. Antifrank, it surprises you that many people who voted Conservative are sceptical of the EU?
No, I'm more surprised that the Europhobes think that it's somehow unfair that the Prime Minister should be popular and influential, and that this somehow invalidates the referendum.
Not seen any Europhobes around here. Who are you talking about? Mind you plenty of self serving Euro-fanatics aren't there Antifrank. How are your vested interests in the EU these days?
I haven't yet decided which way I'll vote in the referendum. Have you?
What on earth is there to decide. Whatever Dave comes up with , it would be madness to leave the EU.
There you go... decision made for you.
Why?
Britain is a significant global economy, with trading links internationally and a huge base of talented individuals.
Being in the EU has meaningful advantages, but it also has serious costs. The direction of travel is towards more integration of the core Eurozone and, as a result, it is imperative that adequate mechanisms are put in place to protect the interests of the "non-Eurozone" countries.
Failing that, there is a strong argument that we would be better off charting our own future as a friendly but independent partner to the Eurozone.
but we wouldn't be a friendly partner. If we left, the loathing and hatred would go on for centuries !!
Bold statement. Please back it up.
Countries are the definition of pragmatic.
You are right of course, the point its the dislike would go on for centuries.. eg France.
Mr. Thompson, use of language frames debates. Calling the EU 'Europe' supposes that good European relations are contingent upon the EU, which is a nonsense.
Felix/kle4 If indyref2 is in the SNP manifesto will be interesting to see if it increases the level of unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote
We have a major trade deficit with the EU because the members of it make lots of things we want, whether it is German cars or French and Spanish wine, and, unfortunately, the reverse is not so true. We sell them financial services and increasingly legal service but the balance clearly favours them and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future unless we find a new North sea.
What this has to do with our membership of the EU I am really not sure. We would surely be aiming for a free trade zone with the EU anyway so I don't see what would change so far as trade is concerned.
A free trade zone can only work when there are agreements about subsidies etc between the participants so we could not expect to keep it and then look to subsidise wine production in the south of England (for example) so it could undercut those we are trading with. It is for this reason members of the EEA have to comply with the free trade regulations and I don't see that changing either.
Our concern is that the market rules of the EU might continue to be shaped in a way that favours the other members and not us. So, for example, the free trade of goods is far more established and comprehensive than it is for services which is our main area of strength. There are also subsidies like the CAP, even in its much reformed state, where we lose far more than we gain. There is also an hostility to the red in tooth and claw capitalism of the City which is regarded as dangerous and destabilising, especially after 2008. This tends the EU to being more restrictive than we want to be given London's place in the world market.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EEA would give you that David. You should not believe the rubbish about EEA having no influence over the rules of the free market. They have complete parity in everthing up to the final deal and then, unlike the UK inside the EU, if they don't like that final deal because it is against their fundamental interests, they have the right of veto.
The EEA option is far better than the deal we currently have with the EU.
I think all EU members are also EEA members, if we vote to leave the EU can we retain our EEA membership or do we need to reapply ?
Plato Yes, it looks like there is a clear divide between northern Europe, whose economies are still relatively resilient and southern Europe whose economies are much less so
Are we saying that Boris wants us to actually vote No - whereupon the EU officials will spring forth with peacocks and ivory to entice us back? Or he just wants Brussels to THINK we will vote no? Unclear...
Personally, I would punch EU-rocrats in the face until they understand that if we vote out - we are gone. Ain't never coming back. No UK politician is going to say "Hang on a minute chaps - they know we are serious now, so let's have another round of discussions..." Not even Boris.
There is only one time for Brussels to take us seriously. That is right about now.
It is becoming rather tedious pointing out to Cameron haters on PB that whatever deal he returns with will be presented to the populace..who will then decide..it has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal choice which will amount to one single vote.
I know others have answered this but I have to add to how silly it is. I like Cameron and as pm his view on something has even greater weight, and as split as they are he leads as large section of a political tribe which will follow his view closely perhaps despite some misgivings.
Personally I just don't think he is able to get enough from the other leaders to make it worth it, but others might if they trust him enough.
I'm surprised how many on both sides seem so keen to pre-judge any deal before its made or even worse seem to have zero confidence in the ability to of their countrymen to tell the difference.
In this modern era of the internet and 24/7 news etc any deal will be micro-analysed to death. Nobody will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public as a whole. If any deal is a sham it will be revealed as such within days not years.
Why? It has already been made clear that what he is asking for as a maximum is not enough to satisfy even the minimum for most Eurosceptics so why should you be surprised that we reject it? Even the EU was surprised at how little Cameron was asking for after all his big words about substantial renegotiation.
That's not what I'm saying. You can say "well that's not enough, so no thanks" and that I respect. Disagree with you, but respect you.
What many (not you personally) keep saying here and elsewhere is that whatever Cameron will bring back will be a "sham" or a "lie" or "mutton dressed as lamb" etc which could "trick" the public into voting yes. I don't think that the public are that gullible, I think that the public (like you) will be capable if they care to figure out what exactly is on offer and judge it. If what's on offer is masked as something its not, then that will unravel spectacularly before the referendum.
I would like to think you are right Phil but the polls seem to tell a different story when it comes to the influence Cameron's recommendation has on people. Maybe the polls just aren't asking the right question.
I think it's more a case of people choosing the middle option, ie In/In if Cameron gets a good deal/Out.
@AFP: #BREAKING: ECB 'cannot cut off lifeline' to Greece: French PM
Since the ECB is explicitly required not to prop up a bust bank, and with the indications there will be no deal meaning that's exactly what the Greek banks are, the ECB has acted in an entirely predictable manner, as they were obliged to. Interesting to see the gap between France and the rest, though.
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Are we saying that Boris wants us to actually vote No - whereupon the EU officials will spring forth with peacocks and ivory to entice us back? Or he just wants Brussels to THINK we will vote no? Unclear...
Personally, I would punch EU-rocrats in the face until they understand that if we vote out - we are gone. Ain't never coming back. No UK politician is going to say "Hang on a minute chaps - they know we are serious now, so let's have another round of discussions..." Not even Boris.
There is only one time for Brussels to take us seriously. That is right about now.
We have a major trade deficit with the EU because the members of it make lots of things we want, whether it is German cars or French and Spanish wine, and, unfortunately, the reverse is not so true. We sell them financial services and increasingly legal service but the balance clearly favours them and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future unless we find a new North sea.
What this has to do with our membership of the EU I am really not sure. We would surely be aiming for a free trade zone with the EU anyway so I don't see what would change so far as trade is concerned.
A free trade zone can only work when there are agreements about subsidies etc between the participants so we could not expect to keep it and then look to subsidise wine production in the south of England (for example) so it could undercut those we are trading with. It is for this reason members of the EEA have to comply with the free trade regulations and I don't see that changing either.
Our concern is that the market rules of the EU might continue to be shaped in a way that favours the other members and not us. So, for example, the free trade of goods is far more established and comprehensive than it is for services which is our main area of strength. There are also subsidies like the CAP, even in its much reformed state, where we lose far more than we gain. There is also an hostility to the red in tooth and claw capitalism of the City which is regarded as dangerous and destabilising, especially after 2008. This tends the EU to being more restrictive than we want to be given London's place in the world market.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EEA would give you that David. You should not believe the rubbish about EEA having no influence over the rules of the free market. They have complete parity in everthing up to the final deal and then, unlike the UK inside the EU, if they don't like that final deal because it is against their fundamental interests, they have the right of veto.
The EEA option is far better than the deal we currently have with the EU.
That may be correct in theory but in reality the EEA is given a take it or leave choice given the gross disparity of size and strength between the EU and the rest. Once a compromise has been agreed within the EU there is usually very little interest in even discussing any changes with tiddly countries that are not.
Of course an EEA with the UK in it would been a rather different kettle of fish and may have a lot more of the bargaining power they theoretically have at the moment.
My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
Coups/revolutions do not need to have 'powerful figureheads.' The Tsar and the Kaiser both lost power even when it was far from clear who would replace them. The Chinese Empire fell in 1912 and was not really replaced for 15 years (arguably 37 years) with a series of local bandits managing their own affairs. If the government is perceived to be to blame, it could well be forcibly overthrown by e.g. any mid-ranking army officer ruthless enough to act and able to find enough troops to support him (cf. Egypt).
And @Morris_Dancer yes - I do not now see any way Greece can remain in the Euro/EU if this report is accurate (I added that rider for an obvious reason). I think with only 48 hours to what is pretty well certain default, and this referendum after that deadline, even if the EU panics and relents it will be too late because without printing money the whole economic system will literally collapse entirely.
I am not sure that is correct. There is no mechanism in place for a country to be thrown out of the EU no matter what its status regarding the Eurozone. There is a mechanism for leaving voluntarily under Article 50 of TFEU but not for expulsion.
This paper has some interesting oversight on the whole issue
"Unlike the Charter of the United Nations (UN), Article 6 of which expressly provides for the possibility of a UN Member being expelled for persistently infringing the principles of the Charter, there is no treaty provision at present for a Member State to be expelled from the EU or EMU. The closest that Community law comes to recognising a right of expulsion is Article 7(2) and (3) TEU, allowing the Council to temporarily suspend some of a Member State’s rights (including its voting rights in the Council) for a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ of the EU Treaty. "
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
That was, as I understand it, a dispute over fishing rights and overfishing in Greenland's waters that were starting to seriously threaten Greenland's economy. Nothing compared to what is about to happen to Greece...
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Once again we have an over-complex over-analysed thread based on a numpty suggestion by a tory nutjob (who is scrabbling around to con a no vote out of us as best he can) and which has been followed up by some hearsay based on a 'hmmm... what if' surmise by Boris. The Spectator article and all its resulting crass comments is a joke.
Mr DavidL - yes you make fair points. And really as far as 'subsidies' goes Germany pay in a lot to the EU and smaller countries pay a lot more than us in relation to their population. Norway pay a significant sum as an EEA member and foir access to the single market. As for oil, we have found another north sea under the south downs and of course we have fracking. If we leave the EU for the EEA, then the EU will not go away and we will have no influence on it. We will still obey its regulations and the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU anyway. That may be good that may be bad, but it leaves us with the same basic relationships we currently have. This will not change no matter what the referendum result is. If Cameron's negotiations get what we want there would be little if any benefit in leaving, but being in the EEA would be broadly plausible.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
I don't think it is as simple as that. The treaties do not contemplate a member of the EZ leaving it. They make membership of the EZ a condition of membership (with a series of opt outs for the likes of the UK). But they do not specify what happens if a Member State breaches these requirements. Expulsion is one possibility but not necessarily the only one.
Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
I am not sure that is correct. There is no mechanism in place for a country to be thrown out of the EU no matter what its status regarding the Eurozone. There is a mechanism for leaving voluntarily under Article 50 of TFEU but not for expulsion.
This paper has some interesting oversight on the whole issue
"Unlike the Charter of the United Nations (UN), Article 6 of which expressly provides for the possibility of a UN Member being expelled for persistently infringing the principles of the Charter, there is no treaty provision at present for a Member State to be expelled from the EU or EMU. The closest that Community law comes to recognising a right of expulsion is Article 7(2) and (3) TEU, allowing the Council to temporarily suspend some of a Member State’s rights (including its voting rights in the Council) for a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ of the EU Treaty. "
Ye-es, I can see that as an arguable point - but (crucial but) there is also no official 'mechanism' for expelling Greece from the Euro or allowing it to withdraw and that is clearly about to happen. Where there's a will...
However, I think - and again, if I am wrong, please correct me - members of the EU have to be either members of the Euro or committed in principle to joining with the sole exception of Britain (which has a get-out clause) and Sweden, which is officially signed up but in practice refuses to comply with the entry criteria as a technical way of getting out of it. Therefore, if Greece left the Euro it would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would automatically cease to be a member of the EU.
It is in any case difficult to see that it would want to stay, because you can bet your last Greek Euro cent that, however unjustly, the Greeks will blame the EU for Tuesday's coming events.
Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Obviously that's not leaving the EU as it wasn't around in 1985 but I think the idea is right. Greenland was never a member, but it was a part of the EEC and then it ceased to be so.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
Felix/kle4 If indyref2 is in the SNP manifesto will be interesting to see if it increases the level of unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote
I think it will be in the manifesto but there will be a " Material Events " clause which would need to kick in before any referendum could be pursued. Sturgeon has indicated on a few occasions that this would be their approach, when pushed for an example of a material event she uses the rUK voting to leave EU and Scotland voting to stay.
I think we've been round the tactical voting block a few times already - so i'm saying nothing about it !!
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
What about Algeria after independence? It was a part of metropolitan France until then.
With the situation feeling like it's finally reaching a climax after eight years of foreplay, I wonder if there's still scope for a last minute climbdown by either side.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
I don't think it is as simple as that. The treaties do not contemplate a member of the EZ leaving it. They make membership of the EZ a condition of membership (with a series of opt outs for the likes of the UK). But they do not specify what happens if a Member State breaches these requirements. Expulsion is one possibility but not necessarily the only one.
Anyway we are about to find out.
This is the EU we are talking about, they will do whatever suits them and override anything else.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EU isn't a free trade area now, and doesn't show any real signs of becoming one in the foreseeable future, its a customs union, something that has never before been tried between countries where one is not in effect the vassal state of the other.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Don't need to make it up. We can do what we like. Whist all the 56 SNP MP's can do is play musical chairs with Denis Skinner.
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Obviously that's not leaving the EU as it wasn't around in 1985 but I think the idea is right. Greenland was never a member, but it was a part of the EEC and then it ceased to be so.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
Algeria was technically ruled as part of France from 1830 to de Gaulle's withdrawal in 1962 - it was the French answer to Ireland. Therefore, it was also a member of the forerunner of the EU. However, different rules applied at that stage and Algeria isn't generally included on the list of countries 'leaving' the EU/EEC - that's limited to Greenland.
With the situation feeling like it's finally reaching a climax after eight years of foreplay, I wonder if there's still scope for a last minute climbdown by either side.
Could the budget see some divisions between the 'One Nation' Cameron and the more 'hawkish' and Thatcherite Osborne asks Andrew Rawnsley. The PM is likely to prefer that the Chancellor's spending cuts are moderated a little through higher tax receipts and slashing tax credits while cutting the top tax rate for the rich back to 40% could also undermine Cameron's 'compassionate conservatism'. The PM will be looking at his legacy, the Chancellor at pleasing the Tory Party and ensuring his succession
Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
I am not sure that capital controls are going to be the key here. Most of the money has already gone. What will change is that no new money will come into their banks to allow them to operate.
I think that the EU commitment to the free movement of people is about to be seriously challenged. If I was Greek with my money already abroad and spoke a foreign language I would leave. Now. And for a good number their best foreign language is probably English.
That country is about to fall apart. If those muppets who have been representing them don't end up hanging off a lamp post they will have got better than they deserve.
With the situation feeling like it's finally reaching a climax after eight years of foreplay, I wonder if there's still scope for a last minute climbdown by either side.
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Obviously that's not leaving the EU as it wasn't around in 1985 but I think the idea is right. Greenland was never a member, but it was a part of the EEC and then it ceased to be so.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
Algeria was technically ruled as part of France from 1830 to de Gaulle's withdrawal in 1962 - it was the French answer to Ireland. Therefore, it was also a member of the forerunner of the EU. However, different rules applied at that stage and Algeria isn't generally included on the list of countries 'leaving' the EU/EEC - that's limited to Greenland.
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Obviously that's not leaving the EU as it wasn't around in 1985 but I think the idea is right. Greenland was never a member, but it was a part of the EEC and then it ceased to be so.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
Algeria was technically ruled as part of France from 1830 to de Gaulle's withdrawal in 1962 - it was the French answer to Ireland. Therefore, it was also a member of the forerunner of the EU. However, different rules applied at that stage and Algeria isn't generally included on the list of countries 'leaving' the EU/EEC - that's limited to Greenland.
For the purposes of pedantry, what was the distinction that means Algeria "doesn't count" but Greenland does? (Incidentally the EU expansion map on wiki doesn't initially show Algeria as part of "political Europe", but does later. Not sure if this was due to reorganisation of France, change in European rules or a mistake in wiki.)
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
I don't think it is as simple as that. The treaties do not contemplate a member of the EZ leaving it. They make membership of the EZ a condition of membership (with a series of opt outs for the likes of the UK). But they do not specify what happens if a Member State breaches these requirements. Expulsion is one possibility but not necessarily the only one.
Anyway we are about to find out.
This is the EU we are talking about, they will do whatever suits them and override anything else.
True. But would it suit them to expel Greece? We are in danger of having a failed state on our hands here and well over a million refugees from it. I think they will still want to keep things as stable as possible there.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
I am not sure that is correct. There is no mechanism in place for a country to be thrown out of the EU no matter what its status regarding the Eurozone. There is a mechanism for leaving voluntarily under Article 50 of TFEU but not for expulsion.
This paper has some interesting oversight on the whole issue
"Unlike the Charter of the United Nations (UN), Article 6 of which expressly provides for the possibility of a UN Member being expelled for persistently infringing the principles of the Charter, there is no treaty provision at present for a Member State to be expelled from the EU or EMU. The closest that Community law comes to recognising a right of expulsion is Article 7(2) and (3) TEU, allowing the Council to temporarily suspend some of a Member State’s rights (including its voting rights in the Council) for a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ of the EU Treaty. "
Ye-es, I can see that as an arguable point - but (crucial but) there is also no official 'mechanism' for expelling Greece from the Euro or allowing it to withdraw and that is clearly about to happen. Where there's a will...
However, I think - and again, if I am wrong, please correct me - members of the EU have to be either members of the Euro or committed in principle to joining with the sole exception of Britain (which has a get-out clause) and Sweden, which is officially signed up but in practice refuses to comply with the entry criteria as a technical way of getting out of it. Therefore, if Greece left the Euro it would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would automatically cease to be a member of the EU.
It is in any case difficult to see that it would want to stay, because you can bet your last Greek Euro cent that, however unjustly, the Greeks will blame the EU for Tuesday's coming events.
Technically that is correct but there are far more members than just the UK and Sweden who have chosen not to join the Euro even though in principle they have to. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have all made it clear they have no intention of even starting to move towards joining for the foreseeable future.
The risk the EU runs is that they are bound by treaties and treaties are covered by a separate international law external to the EU. If the EU wants to throw Greece out of either the Euro or the EU without Greek permission and in violation of their treaties they could well find that the treaties themselves become void - something the EU really, really doesn't want to have happen.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EU isn't a free trade area now, and doesn't show any real signs of becoming one in the foreseeable future, its a customs union, something that has never before been tried between countries where one is not in effect the vassal state of the other.
I am not sure that is correct. There is no mechanism in place for a country to be thrown out of the EU no matter what its status regarding the Eurozone. There is a mechanism for leaving voluntarily under Article 50 of TFEU but not for expulsion.
This paper has some interesting oversight on the whole issue
"Unlike the Charter of the United Nations (UN), Article 6 of which expressly provides for the possibility of a UN Member being expelled for persistently infringing the principles of the Charter, there is no treaty provision at present for a Member State to be expelled from the EU or EMU. The closest that Community law comes to recognising a right of expulsion is Article 7(2) and (3) TEU, allowing the Council to temporarily suspend some of a Member State’s rights (including its voting rights in the Council) for a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ of the EU Treaty. "
Ye-es, I can see that as an arguable point - but (crucial but) there is also no official 'mechanism' for expelling Greece from the Euro or allowing it to withdraw and that is clearly about to happen. Where there's a will...
However, I think - and again, if I am wrong, please correct me - members of the EU have to be either members of the Euro or committed in principle to joining with the sole exception of Britain (which has a get-out clause) and Sweden, which is officially signed up but in practice refuses to comply with the entry criteria as a technical way of getting out of it. Therefore, if Greece left the Euro it would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would automatically cease to be a member of the EU.
It is in any case difficult to see that it would want to stay, because you can bet your last Greek Euro cent that, however unjustly, the Greeks will blame the EU for Tuesday's coming events.
Denmark has a monetary union opt out so UK is not sole.
Sweden has no special dispensation. They are obliged, but as you note they know they cant be forced to play ball because there is no punishment for not meeting the criteria.
Felix/kle4 If indyref2 is in the SNP manifesto will be interesting to see if it increases the level of unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote
I think it will be in the manifesto but there will be a " Material Events " clause which would need to kick in before any referendum could be pursued. Sturgeon has indicated on a few occasions that this would be their approach, when pushed for an example of a material event she uses the rUK voting to leave EU and Scotland voting to stay.
I think we've been round the tactical voting block a few times already - so i'm saying nothing about it !!
Makes sense. Get a mandate to run one again but not commit to when exactly unless on a key event deemed to be helpful to the cause.
FlightpathL There are some ideological differences between them, Cameron and Clegg prevented Osborne cutting the top tax right right back to 40p in the last parliament and instead he cut it to 45p
Felix/kle4 If indyref2 is in the SNP manifesto will be interesting to see if it increases the level of unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote
I seriously doubt that SLab will be willing to urge their supporters in parts of the highlands and borders to vote tactically Tory or even LD. On that basis, as a Tory I would argue against any tactical Labour vote. The same for me would apply to the LDs under Farron.
For the purposes of pedantry, what was the distinction that means Algeria "doesn't count" but Greenland does? (Incidentally the EU expansion map on wiki doesn't initially show Algeria as part of "political Europe", but does later. Not sure if this was due to reorganisation of France, change in European rules or a mistake in wiki.)
For the purposes of pedantry - the EEC was officially founded in 1957 but didn't start actually operating as a fully-fledged entity (CAP etc) until it merged with the ECSC in 1962 which was after Algeria became independent.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
I don't think it is as simple as that. The treaties do not contemplate a member of the EZ leaving it. They make membership of the EZ a condition of membership (with a series of opt outs for the likes of the UK). But they do not specify what happens if a Member State breaches these requirements. Expulsion is one possibility but not necessarily the only one.
Anyway we are about to find out.
This is the EU we are talking about, they will do whatever suits them and override anything else.
True. But would it suit them to expel Greece? We are in danger of having a failed state on our hands here and well over a million refugees from it. I think they will still want to keep things as stable as possible there.
Quite.
I always understood the "Greece will have to leave the EU" meme as "if the Greek government want to launch the mark 3 drachma they would have to withdraw from the EU in order to leave the EZ". Which is different to expulsion, and ignores other possibilities like running a parallel currency system or even just trying it on and seeing what punishment, if any, comes their way.
True. But would it suit them to expel Greece? We are in danger of having a failed state on our hands here and well over a million refugees from it. I think they will still want to keep things as stable as possible there.
Morgan Kelly, May 2011:
'Instead, the sole purpose of the Irish bailout was to frighten the Spanish into line with a vivid demonstration that EU rescues are not for the faint-hearted. And the ECB plan, so far anyway, has worked. Given a choice between being strung up like Ireland – an object of international ridicule, paying exorbitant rates on bailout funds, its government ministers answerable to a Hungarian university lecturer – or mending their ways, the Spanish have understandably chosen the latter.'
I think that it would not upset the ECB too much to have another such demonstration of what happens when their creditors try to play silly buggers with them...
With that, I have to go and do some marking. Have a good Sunday everyone!
Thinking it through would the ability to control the flow of refugees from Greece not perhaps need them to be excluded from the EU or at least suspended with the right to free movement taken away from their citizens?
It is not only the Banks that will not be open on Monday.
Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
I am not sure that capital controls are going to be the key here. Most of the money has already gone. What will change is that no new money will come into their banks to allow them to operate.
I think that the EU commitment to the free movement of people is about to be seriously challenged. If I was Greek with my money already abroad and spoke a foreign language I would leave. Now. And for a good number their best foreign language is probably English.
That country is about to fall apart. If those muppets who have been representing them don't end up hanging off a lamp post they will have got better than they deserve.
How fast can Greece print 20 euro notes? (the highest denomination they have plates for)
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Comments
Similarly Europe in common parlance now means the EU and not the continent. That is just linguistics, not being a numpty.
Why would the Eurozone take any different approach to the UK leaving the EU, as the rUK did around Scotland. The rUK seemed minded to peruse a scorched earth policy, why would our rejection of the EU project meet any different response from the EU. The EU leaders are all smiles at the moment as they want to keep us In, however should it become apparent we are on our way out many of our " friends " will be anything other than friendly. For example, a UK EU exit, where would that leave our 1.5 million retirees in France and Spain, healthcare etc ?
I'll be voting to stay in, is the EU perfect - no, it's a basket case - but it's a basket we helped create and without it I fear we would be starting to build our own basket.
For out.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/28/will-budget-divide-hawkish-george-one-nation-david
What many (not you personally) keep saying here and elsewhere is that whatever Cameron will bring back will be a "sham" or a "lie" or "mutton dressed as lamb" etc which could "trick" the public into voting yes. I don't think that the public are that gullible, I think that the public (like you) will be capable if they care to figure out what exactly is on offer and judge it. If what's on offer is masked as something its not, then that will unravel spectacularly before the referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33303105
I think we are about to get a vivid demonstration in the next 48-72 hours of what happens when a country leaves the euro and ergo the EU. Are there any bets on whether Greece's government might be overthrown by a revolution or a coup?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Peter Mandelsonas?
As for prejudging a deal, if it is in actuality a great deal I could be persuaded back to in, but on the probabilities given the disdain of the bureaucrats and the lukewarm reaction from many of the other nations what is wrong with taking a view that a major deal us unlikely? It might be proven wrong but is not unreasonable to expect it either. Nor for an inner taking a view either.
Most are leaning heavily one way or another but that's not quite . prejudging as some will still change depending on the deal.
What this has to do with our membership of the EU I am really not sure. We would surely be aiming for a free trade zone with the EU anyway so I don't see what would change so far as trade is concerned.
A free trade zone can only work when there are agreements about subsidies etc between the participants so we could not expect to keep it and then look to subsidise wine production in the south of England (for example) so it could undercut those we are trading with. It is for this reason members of the EEA have to comply with the free trade regulations and I don't see that changing either.
Our concern is that the market rules of the EU might continue to be shaped in a way that favours the other members and not us. So, for example, the free trade of goods is far more established and comprehensive than it is for services which is our main area of strength. There are also subsidies like the CAP, even in its much reformed state, where we lose far more than we gain. There is also an hostility to the red in tooth and claw capitalism of the City which is regarded as dangerous and destabilising, especially after 2008. This tends the EU to being more restrictive than we want to be given London's place in the world market.
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
Are you really saying you'd correct someone who said they were on a European tour with visits to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, telling them they weren't actually in Europe?
Yesterday people were talking about closing down mosques but I think that would just stir up internal strife and make enemies out of moderates. Better to have a six month total ban on any immigration and check every car and lorry that comes to every port. Perhaps a siege mentality but IMO that is what's needed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11703847/CNN-mistakes-sex-toy-flag-for-Islamic-State-banner.html
Scary place, Britain.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c990f1a2-1cfe-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3eLQYvCw9
I think that's a fundamental misreading of the situation. At the moment, Greece has the choice of chaos and misery inside the EZ, or worse chaos and misery outside the EZ. Actually, that may not even be true now as if the ECB has turned off the tap, they have lost option 1.
I think, although I'm guessing a bit as I don't know much about Greece's exact situation (it's been quite carefully hidden, I suspect) that this crisis will now go one of two ways:
1) Greece defaults and leaves the Euro. Very unpleasant for the Greeks and some of their weaker neighbours e.g. Cyprus. Not too serious for the rest who have wisely limited their exposure and the EZ carries on as before. However, those countries that want to stay in the Eurozone now make a serious effort to sort out their economies with the vivid example of Greece to spur them on, while those that don't make their own preparations to leave (I know of no countries in the latter group and if my suspicions about the implications for Greece are right, it's hard to see any going for this voluntarily even if they grumble a bit). If the second option, it will likely torpedo any chance Cameron has of screwing concessions out of the EU, incidentally.
2) We suddenly find out that an awful lot of banks around the world are sitting on debts linked to Greece or other suspect economies. Interbank lending freezes in a heartbeat and we have Lehmann Brothers magnified a thousandfold. Every single other economy reliant on borrowing - many in the third world, but not by any means all - collapses into chaos. The EU's weaker members panic and need even more emergency funding. Under such circumstances, the EU will have the choice of full political integration more or less on the fly or a cataclysmic collapse without precedent since the sack of Rome and the collapse of the redoubt at Ravenna in 476.
Neither option looks terribly attractive. I suspect history will be most severe on those idiots who rewrote their own rules repeatedly to allow the Euro to start with members who did not meet strict criteria - i.e. all of them except Luxembourg.
But I wouldn't call someone "an ideologically driven numpty" either for using America as a euphemism for the USA or Europe as a euphemism for the European Union. That sort of inconsistent pedantry serves no purpose.
Passporting is an issue, but increasingly we are seeing financial services refocus on national territories - and don't forget that EU firms want access to London as well. Of course we've already seen the French try to use the Eurozone rules, eg on clearing, to try and advantage their own interests so it is by no means a perfect set up at the moment.
And financial services is a global business. For example, I am working on a project at the moment for a US firm operating in the Far East. The only part of the transaction that touches London is me - but that is where the fees will end up...
Jeez. That looks like a nightmare stat right there for many groups of the population. http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/2014/12/12/one-million-empty-homes-spain/
The EEA option is far better than the deal we currently have with the EU.
I suspect Boris has realised this is a catastrophic mistake and is back peddling as quick as he can.
@Plato My understanding is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it has to leave the EU as well unless emergency changes to treaties are made. That simply will not happen especially with Cameron pressing for the same thing. If I am wrong and there is such a way, please correct me.
@nigel4england Coups/revolutions do not need to have 'powerful figureheads.' The Tsar and the Kaiser both lost power even when it was far from clear who would replace them. The Chinese Empire fell in 1912 and was not really replaced for 15 years (arguably 37 years) with a series of local bandits managing their own affairs. If the government is perceived to be to blame, it could well be forcibly overthrown by e.g. any mid-ranking army officer ruthless enough to act and able to find enough troops to support him (cf. Egypt).
And @Morris_Dancer yes - I do not now see any way Greece can remain in the Euro/EU if this report is accurate (I added that rider for an obvious reason). I think with only 48 hours to what is pretty well certain default, and this referendum after that deadline, even if the EU panics and relents it will be too late because without printing money the whole economic system will literally collapse entirely.
Personally, I would punch EU-rocrats in the face until they understand that if we vote out - we are gone. Ain't never coming back. No UK politician is going to say "Hang on a minute chaps - they know we are serious now, so let's have another round of discussions..." Not even Boris.
There is only one time for Brussels to take us seriously. That is right about now.
Of course an EEA with the UK in it would been a rather different kettle of fish and may have a lot more of the bargaining power they theoretically have at the moment.
This paper has some interesting oversight on the whole issue
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp10.pdf
Including this assessment
"Unlike the Charter of the United Nations (UN), Article 6 of which expressly provides for the
possibility of a UN Member being expelled for persistently infringing the principles of the
Charter, there is no treaty provision at present for a Member State to be expelled from the EU or EMU. The closest that Community law comes to recognising a right of expulsion is Article 7(2) and (3) TEU, allowing the Council to temporarily suspend some of a Member State’s rights
(including its voting rights in the Council) for a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ of the EU Treaty. "
Norway has twice turned down membership. I think Iceland has, too.
Mr DavidL - yes you make fair points. And really as far as 'subsidies' goes Germany pay in a lot to the EU and smaller countries pay a lot more than us in relation to their population. Norway pay a significant sum as an EEA member and foir access to the single market.
As for oil, we have found another north sea under the south downs and of course we have fracking.
If we leave the EU for the EEA, then the EU will not go away and we will have no influence on it. We will still obey its regulations and the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU anyway.
That may be good that may be bad, but it leaves us with the same basic relationships we currently have. This will not change no matter what the referendum result is. If Cameron's negotiations get what we want there would be little if any benefit in leaving, but being in the EEA would be broadly plausible.
Anyway we are about to find out.
Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
However, I think - and again, if I am wrong, please correct me - members of the EU have to be either members of the Euro or committed in principle to joining with the sole exception of Britain (which has a get-out clause) and Sweden, which is officially signed up but in practice refuses to comply with the entry criteria as a technical way of getting out of it. Therefore, if Greece left the Euro it would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would automatically cease to be a member of the EU.
It is in any case difficult to see that it would want to stay, because you can bet your last Greek Euro cent that, however unjustly, the Greeks will blame the EU for Tuesday's coming events.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
I think we've been round the tactical voting block a few times already - so i'm saying nothing about it !!
Switzerland has also rejected membership twice.
Mr. Sandpit, that is a good point.
Gotta love the UK electorate.....
#wasitasgoodforyouasitwasforme
I think that the EU commitment to the free movement of people is about to be seriously challenged. If I was Greek with my money already abroad and spoke a foreign language I would leave. Now. And for a good number their best foreign language is probably English.
That country is about to fall apart. If those muppets who have been representing them don't end up hanging off a lamp post they will have got better than they deserve.
The risk the EU runs is that they are bound by treaties and treaties are covered by a separate international law external to the EU. If the EU wants to throw Greece out of either the Euro or the EU without Greek permission and in violation of their treaties they could well find that the treaties themselves become void - something the EU really, really doesn't want to have happen.
Sweden has no special dispensation. They are obliged, but as you note they know they cant be forced to play ball because there is no punishment for not meeting the criteria.
Well that was one of my better tips I think... hopefully someone here put more than the £1 on I bet... and then hopefully there will be a referendum.
Edited extra bit: just backed No. Could well be void, but if the referendum proceeds it's green either way. Huzzah!
I always understood the "Greece will have to leave the EU" meme as "if the Greek government want to launch the mark 3 drachma they would have to withdraw from the EU in order to leave the EZ". Which is different to expulsion, and ignores other possibilities like running a parallel currency system or even just trying it on and seeing what punishment, if any, comes their way.
'Instead, the sole purpose of the Irish bailout was to frighten the Spanish into line with a vivid demonstration that EU rescues are not for the faint-hearted. And the ECB plan, so far anyway, has worked. Given a choice between being strung up like Ireland – an object of international ridicule, paying exorbitant rates on bailout funds, its government ministers answerable to a Hungarian university lecturer – or mending their ways, the Spanish have understandably chosen the latter.'
I think that it would not upset the ECB too much to have another such demonstration of what happens when their creditors try to play silly buggers with them...
With that, I have to go and do some marking. Have a good Sunday everyone!
It is not only the Banks that will not be open on Monday.
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/uk-labour-tries-to-block-trademark-for-scottish-labour-party.130285952
John McTernan, Jim Murphy's £80.000 Chief of Staff is fighting for a pay off after only 6 months in the job and by any measure wasn't a success.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-chief-of-staff-in-labour-pay-off-wrangle.130292982