Interesting article by the PM of Norway about how the EEA works for them: http://bit.ly/115DBjn
But what would she know?
She says: "Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Fanatical Europhile PM you mean. That is like asking Ken Clarke - former chancellor, must be very important and all that - his opinion.
And as a Europhile she is being - not surprisingly - dishonest. Norway has not adopted 3/4 of all the EU legislative acts. They have adopted 3/4 of the EEA agreed legislation. Indeed as of 2013 they were being threatened with action by the EU for failing to adopt more than 400 of the directives they had already agreed to under the EEA agreement.
Basically David you are talking rubbish.
Take it up with the Norwegian government you said. But not the PM apparently. Richard, this is just silly.
Quite disappointing to see otherwise intelligent people argue that small lies/misrepresentations do not matter when it comes to arguing the case for remaining in the EU.
The "3 million jobs" lie/misrepresentation has been hugely damaging. However, even the author of the report, Iain Begg, describes it as being "pure Goebbels".
Rather amusingly it was Goebbels who said that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".
The lie/misrepresentation has been repeated across social media and has been used on Labour literature at the Euro elections and repeated by Nick Clegg on national television.
Will Straw had to agree to stop using it after being confronted by the author at a EU debate run by the Spectator.
Interesting article by the PM of Norway about how the EEA works for them: http://bit.ly/115DBjn
But what would she know?
She says: "Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Fanatical Europhile PM you mean. That is like asking Ken Clarke - former chancellor, must be very important and all that - his opinion.
And as a Europhile she is being - not surprisingly - dishonest. Norway has not adopted 3/4 of all the EU legislative acts. They have adopted 3/4 of the EEA agreed legislation. Indeed as of 2013 they were being threatened with action by the EU for failing to adopt more than 400 of the directives they had already agreed to under the EEA agreement.
Basically David you are talking rubbish.
Take it up with the Norwegian government you said. But not the PM apparently. Richard, this is just silly.
The Eurofanatical Norwegian PM has her opinions. I am using the actual agreements and the papers from the Norwegian government., I see you have refused to address those so far.
Do you deny that EFTA members of the EEA have a veto? Do you still falsely claim that if they exercise that veto they have to leave the EEA?
If you still hold to both of those positions then you are frankly beyond help.
Quite disappointing to see otherwise intelligent people argue that small lies/misrepresentations do not matter when it comes to arguing the case for remaining in the EU.
The "3 million jobs" lie/misrepresentation has been hugely damaging. However, even the author of the report, Iain Begg, describes it as being "pure Goebbels".
Rather amusingly it was Goebbels who said that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".
The lie/misrepresentation has been repeated across social media and has been used on Labour literature at the Euro elections and repeated by Nick Clegg on national television.
Will Straw had to agree to stop using it after being confronted by the author at a EU debate run by the Spectator.
It was always complete tosh, presumably based on the idea that we would stop trading with the EU if we came out.
Personally, I think that we would be big enough to negotiate a satisfactory trading arrangement with the EU in or out of the EEA. We are just too important a market to them. It is clear, however, that free trade will require compliance with that part of EU law that relates to the Single Market.
I suspect we would struggle to notice much of a difference which is why I refuse to get too wound up about it either way.
As far as the EEA is concerned, it would become a very different organisation with the UK as its leader. Proponents of EEA membership outside the EU might argue (with some justification) it would stand as an alternative economic free market model to the EU and might become more attractive as such an alternative to some existing EU members.
I'd have thought an EEA with the UK leading could move quickly to fundamentally renegotiate its relationship with the EU and perhaps with NAFTA and other trading blocs.
I am a signed-up supporter of Labour Leave. We seem to be a group missing from Nick's analysis. Even if JC is a reluctant Remainer, there will be a significant tranche of Labourites voting Leave - and for very different reasons to the Kippers and Tory right.
I am a signed-up supporter of Labour Leave. We seem to be a group missing from Nick's analysis. Even if JC is a reluctant Remainer, there will be a significant tranche of Labourites voting Leave - and for very different reasons to the Kippers and Tory right.
Interesting article by the PM of Norway about how the EEA works for them: http://bit.ly/115DBjn
But what would she know?
She says: "Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Fanatical Europhile PM you mean. That is like asking Ken Clarke - former chancellor, must be very important and all that - his opinion.
And as a Europhile she is being - not surprisingly - dishonest. Norway has not adopted 3/4 of all the EU legislative acts. They have adopted 3/4 of the EEA agreed legislation. Indeed as of 2013 they were being threatened with action by the EU for failing to adopt more than 400 of the directives they had already agreed to under the EEA agreement.
Basically David you are talking rubbish.
Take it up with the Norwegian government you said. But not the PM apparently. Richard, this is just silly.
The Eurofanatical Norwegian PM has her opinions. I am using the actual agreements and the papers from the Norwegian government., I see you have refused to address those so far.
Do you deny that EFTA members of the EEA have a veto? Do you still falsely claim that if they exercise that veto they have to leave the EEA?
If you still hold to both of those positions then you are frankly beyond help.
This is tedious. I have linked to the agreement and shown you the relevant articles which provide for suspension in the event of non compliance. Enough. Have it your way.
We could not become influential again because we do not share their vision. As long as we remain on the outside of the Eurozone we will never be considered as leaders of the EU. Our vision for the EU and that of most of our partners are fundamentally different and will always remain so.
Well, two points on that. One is that "always" is a big word. We very nearly joined the Euro (I think the same dynamics that apply to the current referendum would have carried the day if a Government had recommended it) and it's not too hard to imagine a situation where the Euro area is doing markedly better than us. It's certainly not the case now, but in 10-15 years, it's hard to tell.
But more importantly, the EU leaders are not quite as integrationist as they like to make out. The small countries' leaders generally are - if you're a leading politician in Luxmbourg or Belgium or Latvia, really your only shot at the big time is integration. But people running Germany, France and Italy rather like the power they've got, and are not in a hurry to give it away. There is definitely an audience for pragmatic joint action without more than symbolic acts of union - rebranding passports, sure, giving up control of taxation, nah.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We are not the Inner core, that was always France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium ie the original founders and De Gaulle vetoed our early membership because we were too Anglo Saxon and he feared we would be 'an American trojan horse' and were too linked to the Commonwealth. We are basically a non-Eurozone Outer EU nation along with Sweden and Denmark and a handful of Eastern European states
We could not become influential again because we do not share their vision. As long as we remain on the outside of the Eurozone we will never be considered as leaders of the EU. Our vision for the EU and that of most of our partners are fundamentally different and will always remain so.
Well, two points on that. One is that "always" is a big word. We very nearly joined the Euro (I think the same dynamics that apply to the current referendum would have carried the day if a Government had recommended it)
Yes and no. The only reason TB didn't go for it was that he knew he couldn't carry the country. GB's infamous five tests were just a smokescreen, a handy excuse.
That, the shafting of the Greek people on behalf of the establishment, the lack of a coherent response to the migrant situation, the general lack of democracy and accountability, etc.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We are not the Inner core, that was always France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium ie the original founders and De Gaulle vetoed our early membership because we were too Anglo Saxon and he feared we would be 'an American trojan horse' and were too linked to the Commonwealth. We are basically a non-Eurozone Outer EU nation along with Sweden and Denmark and a handful of Eastern European states
And it is the creation of the eurozone which creates the necessity for us to look again at our position in EU.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
It's remarkable how deluded Mr g has to keep himself
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
There are provisions under Article 29 of the agreement entitling workers from EEA countries to benefits. I don't know the details but it doesn't immediately look that different.
Thanks, I'll do some more digging in that area.
I'm personally moving further towards out of both the EU and EEA. Why implement so many rules for free trade with Europe when we can be setting up free trade with growing economics rather than shrinking ones?
As was mentioned down thread, Germany sells us enough cars and appliances for them to want to make something work. As an independent UK we are better off looking towards Australia, Canada, India and China for growth markets, than to an inward-looking, protectionist EU determined to drive towards a superstate no matter what the people think.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We are not the Inner core, that was always France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium ie the original founders and De Gaulle vetoed our early membership because we were too Anglo Saxon and he feared we would be 'an American trojan horse' and were too linked to the Commonwealth. We are basically a non-Eurozone Outer EU nation along with Sweden and Denmark and a handful of Eastern European states
And it is the creation of the eurozone which creates the necessity for us to look again at our position in EU.
Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria are also in the EU but not the eurozone like us, a two-tier EU already exists
As far as the EEA is concerned, it would become a very different organisation with the UK as its leader. Proponents of EEA membership outside the EU might argue (with some justification) it would stand as an alternative economic free market model to the EU and might become more attractive as such an alternative to some existing EU members.
I'd have thought an EEA with the UK leading could move quickly to fundamentally renegotiate its relationship with the EU and perhaps with NAFTA and other trading blocs.
Indeed, and renegotiate this ridiculous demand that EFTA/EEA nations must buy their way into the EU trade zone.
This is tedious. I have linked to the agreement and shown you the relevant articles which provide for suspension in the event of non compliance. Enough. Have it your way.
And I have shown you the relevant articles that show you are wrong. It is not tedious, it is your misrepresentation that is the problem.
You stated that Article 100 and following of the EEA Agreement said that failure to implement a directive would lead to suspension.
Article 100 states:
"The EC Commission shall ensure experts of the EFTA States as wide a participation as possible according to the areas concerned, in the preparatory stage of draft measures to be submitted subsequently to the committees which assist the EC Commission in the exercise of its executive powers. In this regard, when drawing up draft measures the EC Commission shall refer to experts of the EFTA States on the same basis as it refers to experts of the EC Member States. In the cases where the Council of the European Communities is seized in accordance with the procedure applicable to the type of committee involved, the EC Commission shall transmit to the Council of the European Communities the views of the experts of the EFTA States"
Nothing about suspension there.
In fact the whole of the section you refer to from Article 100 to 104 makes no mention whatsoever of the suspension of a country.
What it refers to is the suspension of the section of the legislation that cannot be agreed upon between the EU and the EFTA members of the EEA - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I am afraid you have failed to read your own source properly. You have been blinded by your own opinion.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We are not the Inner core, that was always France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium ie the original founders and De Gaulle vetoed our early membership because we were too Anglo Saxon and he feared we would be 'an American trojan horse' and were too linked to the Commonwealth. We are basically a non-Eurozone Outer EU nation along with Sweden and Denmark and a handful of Eastern European states
The creation of the eurozone is what leads to our need for a new relationship with the EU.
Sunday Politics showing Jess Phillips performance at that committee. But still Andrew Neil comes back to the idiots on the internet as an argument to undermine Phillip Davies's position.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Not if Germany takes a million refugees a year, it won't.
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very strong presence there. A condition of any deal will be a new constitutional settlement that up to now PP has refused to contemplate. Finishing second in a tight election gives C's the chance to form a government, so I doubt there'd be any formal deal with PP. More a Spanish equivalent of confidence and supply. And I would not rule out a deal with PSOE. The two parties have just done one in Andalucia.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
There are provisions under Article 29 of the agreement entitling workers from EEA countries to benefits. I don't know the details but it doesn't immediately look that different.
Thanks, I'll do some more digging in that area.
I'm personally moving further towards out of both the EU and EEA. Why implement so many rules for free trade with Europe when we can be setting up free trade with growing economics rather than shrinking ones?
As was mentioned down thread, Germany sells us enough cars and appliances for them to want to make something work. As an independent UK we are better off looking towards Australia, Canada, India and China for growth markets, than to an inward-looking, protectionist EU determined to drive towards a superstate no matter what the people think.
Free trade is a bit of a fantasy. Trade is still very regulated and increasingly it is the larger trading blocs that set the rules for everyone else. At the moment we are concerned about the regulations of the Single Market but soon enough we will be (rightly) concerned about the implications of TTIP.
The days when the UK set the rules for world trade have unfortunately gone and they are not coming back.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Not if Germany takes a million refugees a year, it won't.
Merkel is already losing support because of that, that is not going to happen
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
It's remarkable how deluded Mr g has to keep himself
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
For at least the 2nd week running the Sunday Politics show has 2 out of the 3 political "experts" from the Guardian. Beyond a joke. Impartial? My ars*.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
There are provisions under Article 29 of the agreement entitling workers from EEA countries to benefits. I don't know the details but it doesn't immediately look that different.
Thanks, I'll do some more digging in that area.
I'm personally moving further towards out of both the EU and EEA. Why implement so many rules for free trade with Europe when we can be setting up free trade with growing economics rather than shrinking ones?
As was mentioned down thread, Germany sells us enough cars and appliances for them to want to make something work. As an independent UK we are better off looking towards Australia, Canada, India and China for growth markets, than to an inward-looking, protectionist EU determined to drive towards a superstate no matter what the people think.
My views entirely. If the EU insist on imposing tariffs on UK goods and services because we refuse to pay for access to the free market, that will hurt in the short term but with massive medium- to long-term benefits. It will force us to be more competitive (to continue to trade with Europe) will shifting our focus to non-EU, growth markets where we will be more competitive because European tariffs have forced us to be.
For at least the 2nd week running the Sunday Politics show has 2 out of the 3 political "experts" fom the Guardian. Beyond a joke. Impartial? My ars*.
They like to think Nick Watt is impartial as a he's a political editor. Poly is the representative of the left and Janan the representative of the right. Janan gives the impression of being more of an analyst and rarely says something that sounds like an opinion on what's right and wrong. Poly, on the other hand, doesn't care about coming across as the mouthpiece for the Labour Party.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Italians regard London as the capital of Europe. Ask one.
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very strong presence there. A condition of any deal will be a new constitutional settlement that up to now PP has refused to contemplate. Finishing second in a tight election gives C's the chance to form a government, so I doubt there'd be any formal deal with PP. More a Spanish equivalent of confidence and supply. And I would not rule out a deal with PSOE. The two parties have just done one in Andalucia.
Ciudadanos are socially and economically liberal, I doubt PSOE's membership would contemplate a formal deal with them anyway. They would probably do a confidence and supply deal with the largest party, in Andalucia that was the PSOE
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
There are provisions under Article 29 of the agreement entitling workers from EEA countries to benefits. I don't know the details but it doesn't immediately look that different.
Thanks, I'll do some more digging in that area.
I'm personally moving further towards out of both the EU and EEA. Why implement so many rules for free trade with Europe when we can be setting up free trade with growing economics rather than shrinking ones?
As was mentioned down thread, Germany sells us enough cars and appliances for them to want to make something work. As an independent UK we are better off looking towards Australia, Canada, India and China for growth markets, than to an inward-looking, protectionist EU determined to drive towards a superstate no matter what the people think.
Free trade is a bit of a fantasy. Trade is still very regulated and increasingly it is the larger trading blocs that set the rules for everyone else. At the moment we are concerned about the regulations of the Single Market but soon enough we will be (rightly) concerned about the implications of TTIP.
The days when the UK set the rules for world trade have unfortunately gone and they are not coming back.
David please will you acknowledge that you made an error when you said the articles of the EEA Agreement you linked to referred to the suspension of a country.
They do not.
They refer to the suspension of the relevant legislation until agreed by all members.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Yes, which is why there are so many Brits working in Berlin and so few Germans working in London, or maybe not! Germany has a lot going for it but London is the most attractive city in Europe for young Europeans by some distance
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very strong presence there. A condition of any deal will be a new constitutional settlement that up to now PP has refused to contemplate. Finishing second in a tight election gives C's the chance to form a government, so I doubt there'd be any formal deal with PP. More a Spanish equivalent of confidence and supply. And I would not rule out a deal with PSOE. The two parties have just done one in Andalucia.
Ciudadanos are socially and economically liberal, I doubt PSOE's membership would contemplate a formal deal with them anyway. They would probably do a confidence and supply deal with the largest party, in Andalucia that was the PSOE
We'll see. My guess is that if C's come second they'll prefer to do a deal with PSOE. The mood language around the deal in Andalucia certainly suggested that possibility.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
EFTA members of the EEA sit as full members on over 200 committees involved in the designing and drafting of Single Market legislation. Obviously it is difficult to say what goes on inside the committees but they are not simply consulted after the event.
'Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.'
With 8% of the votes and less than 10% of the MEP's can you remind us of which directives in the past 5 years the UK has actually managed to block ?
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade......
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider l.....
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Odd then that Scotland has one of the highest rates of people born in that land who choose to live somewhere else (1.15m) and 835,000 of them select the non-Scotland parts of the UK rather than outside the UK. SCOTLAND’S DIASPORA AND OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION 2009.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
Since Norway’s main industries–fishing, oil rigs and shipping – all involve seafarers and employment, this convention is obviously important. It’s no surprise, then, that Norway was the first European state to ratify the agreement in 2009, beaten worldwide only by Panama, the Bahamas, the Marshall Islands and Liberia. From the ILO’s press release noting Norway’s prompt ratification we learn that the country ‘played a leadership role throughout more than five years of preparation leading to the adoption of the Convention in 2006’, plus Norwegians ‘also played a key role in developing the international guidelines for flag State inspections and port State control officers carrying out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention’, adopted in 2008. ILO director-general Juan Somavia praised Norway’s contribution for leading Europe into ‘fair globalisation’.
vs
Owen Paterson, former environment secretary, related an anecdote in which he attended a New Zealand meeting of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), part of Codex’s sister organisation, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The New Zealand delegation was pushing for a crucial initiative on sheep, and was desperate for Canadian and American support. Paterson asked why the British weren’t being asked to help and was ‘stung’ when he was told the ‘UK's position was entirely represented by the EU’.
The Norwegian Way - A case study for Britain’s future relationship with the EU - Jonathan Lindsell
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
It's remarkable how deluded Mr g has to keep himself
Indeed
Ha Ha fools seldom differ , console yourselves with mutual confirmation.
I used your story last night as a study of your gullibility and lack of fact-checking, not duplicity. And it was a corker.
What a lot you've given me to chew on!
This first. Why on earth would I 'fact check' something anecdotal (and stated as such) like that? How would I even do it - I don't even have contact details for this guy. I thought it was an interesting and entertaining addition to the discussion. I still think that. The fact that you've chosen this thin gruel to attack me over is really quite bizarre.
As for gullibility, what is it except a meaningless value judgement? The opposite of gullibility is presumably a pathological difficulty/inability to accept changed circumstances and assimilate new paradigms, because such a radical change in world view would distress the individual too much. An example would be the imperial Chinese refusing to accept that their world had changed and they were now technologically inferior. I don't see that as a strength.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
More migrants prefer to live in Tower Hamlets than Scotland, Malcolm.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
Indeed, Mr. Observer, and presumably there are examples where the UK has managed to influence EU law and rules when France and Germany disagreed. I am would like to hear of them. I struggle to think of any.
Has the free market in services been completed yet?
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Odd then that Scotland has one of the highest rates of people born in that land who choose to live somewhere else (1.15m) and 835,000 of them select the non-Scotland parts of the UK rather than outside the UK. SCOTLAND’S DIASPORA AND OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION 2009.
There are more Scots in England than any city in Scotland. It might sound surprising, but according to the latest census figures, there are about 750,000 people born in Scotland who live south of the border. That's more than the population of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
'Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.'
With 8% of the votes and less than 10% of the MEP's can you remind us of which directives in the past 5 years the UK has actually managed to block ?
Which has it wanted to? Again, I don't know. The UK has one of the single biggest voices in the EU. There is an argument for saying that we have repeatedly failed to use it to maximum effect. The interests of France and Germany look increasingly divergent, while many in southern and eastern Europe are not overenamoured of the German approach.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Aren't the Nats tiresome when the only dirge they know is 'London bad'.....
The Nat third-raters hate London because its success contrasts with their failed lives. Top-notch Nats like Salmond adore London and live there.
London and the South East are the destinations of choice for Scots moving to the rest of the UK. There are over 200,000 Scots in those regions combined.
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very strong presence there. A condition of any deal will be a new constitutional settlement that up to now PP has refused to contemplate. Finishing second in a tight election gives C's the chance to form a government, so I doubt there'd be any formal deal with PP. More a Spanish equivalent of confidence and supply. And I would not rule out a deal with PSOE. The two parties have just done one in Andalucia.
Ciudadanos are socially and economically liberal, I doubt PSOE's membership would contemplate a formal deal with them anyway. They would probably do a confidence and supply deal with the largest party, in Andalucia that was the PSOE
We'll see. My guess is that if C's come second they'll prefer to do a deal with PSOE. The mood language around the deal in Andalucia certainly suggested that possibility.
I don't see any evidence of that, Ciudadanos want to cut taxes and keep spending down, policies anathema to the bulk of PSOE supporters, if they did a deal on such a platform PSOE would lose yet more voters to Podemos. They also oppose Catalan nationalism even if they want a better deal
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
Indeed, Mr. Observer, and presumably there are examples where the UK has managed to influence EU law and rules when France and Germany disagreed. I am would like to hear of them. I struggle to think of any.
Has the free market in services been completed yet?
In my little world, the UK has batted its corner very effectively on the Unified Patent Court - threatening to scupper a deal unless one of the major chambers was situated here and getting exactly that. I can't tell you about other areas, but I suspect we are probably more effective in many ways than perhaps we think as the results are rarely headline news.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Only Germany has a higher gdp per capita than the UK of the major EU nations and London is now the capital of Europe in all but name, just look at the number of French working there!
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
More migrants prefer to live in Tower Hamlets than Scotland, Malcolm.
I know they whinge on here about it and them constantly.
As far as the EEA is concerned, it would become a very different organisation with the UK as its leader. Proponents of EEA membership outside the EU might argue (with some justification) it would stand as an alternative economic free market model to the EU and might become more attractive as such an alternative to some existing EU members.
I'd have thought an EEA with the UK leading could move quickly to fundamentally renegotiate its relationship with the EU and perhaps with NAFTA and other trading blocs.
Agreed.
EFTA becomes a different beast with the UK in it, and there must be a possibility of other defections from the €zone avoiders.
The impact of our departure is obviously massively different for Ireland compared to Latvia, and Germany compared to Greece so the likelihood of the EU having a common response is just as improbable as it is on everything of significance at the moment.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Aren't the Nats tiresome when the only dirge they know is 'London bad'.....
The Nat third-raters hate London because its success contrasts with their failed lives. Top-notch Nats like Salmond adore London and live there.
London and the South East are the destinations of choice for Scots moving to the rest of the UK. There are over 200,000 Scots in those regions combined.
Ladbrokes have some opening odds on who will lead the official LEAVE campaign:
2 Boris Johnson 5 Theresa May 6 Nigel Farage 10 James Dyson 12 Kate Hoey 16 George Osborne 20 Philip Hammond 25 Lord Lawson 25 Steve Baker 25 Bernard Jenkin 25 Douglas Carswell 50 Dan Hannan 50 Paul Nuttall 66 Jeremy Corbyn 100 Philip Davies 100 Mark Reckless
Odd then that Scotland has one of the highest rates of people born in that land who choose to live somewhere else (1.15m) and 835,000 of them select the non-Scotland parts of the UK rather than outside the UK. SCOTLAND’S DIASPORA AND OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION 2009.
There are more Scots in England than any city in Scotland. It might sound surprising, but according to the latest census figures, there are about 750,000 people born in Scotland who live south of the border. That's more than the population of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Please do not confuse London with the rest of England. That London is, mostly, a dump I agree and, if forced to live in a city, I think I would prefer just about anywhere in Europe (except Paris, obviously) to it. However, London isn't England anymore than the east end of Glasgow is Scotland.
You are being narrow-minded to the point of losing an entire dimension. Posters are not legal documents. They are to be interpreted practically and voters sensibly will do exactly that. Practically, Remain are putting forward an entirely defensible viewpoint. it is an outcome that in practice might well eventuate and arguably is pretty much inevitable in the event of Brexit. You may disagree with that argument but raging that it's a filthy lie just makes you look silly.
I'm not being narrow minded at all. Saying that we pay the same as someone else when we pay almost twice as much is simply a falsehood. Saying that Norway has no say, when they have both extensive consultation and a vote on the EEA joint committee, is simply a falsehood. Saying nations that freely trade with the EU have to pay in to the EU budget, when several don't, is simply a falsehood.
These things are untrue formally, practically, technically, or whatever words you want to use. People seeing them printed will assume they are true. It is thus dishonest to campaign on such a basis. I would have thought expecting campaigns to be truthful is something everyone except the politicians themselves could agree on. Apparently there will be someone that disagrees on everything!
You appear to have a problem with normal usage of the English language. I have tried to give you some anti-EU examples to show why you are being utterly daft. Since you are determined not to understand, I can't help you further.
I used your story last night as a study of your gullibility and lack of fact-checking, not duplicity. And it was a corker.
What a lot you've given me to chew on!
This first. Why on earth would I 'fact check' something anecdotal (and stated as such) like that? How would I even do it - I don't even have contact details for this guy. I thought it was an interesting and entertaining addition to the discussion. I still think that. The fact that you've chosen this thin gruel to attack me over is really quite bizarre.
As for gullibility, what is it except a meaningless value judgement? The opposite of gullibility is presumably a pathological difficulty/inability to accept changed circumstances and assimilate new paradigms, because such a radical change in world view would distress the individual too much. An example would be the imperial Chinese refusing to accept that their world had changed and they were now technologically inferior. I don't see that as a strength.
As I said, you are utterly gullible. It was patently obvious that the story was a load of rubbish, which even a quick check on Wiki could have shown.
It was quite easy: the Britannic was launched after the Titanic, and the first of the ships, the Olympic, was launched a year before the Titanic, so was hardly an elderly vessel.
You even went for appeal to authority, with (from memory) a "naval architect" who had access to the archives.
Given that these facts could be discovered in a couple of minutes on Wiki, it's a sign that you are eager to believe and spread just about any old horesesh@t conspiracy theory that you come across.
It shows your repeatedly-stated fact- and source-checking is just a load of baloney.
Ladbrokes have some opening odds on who will lead the official LEAVE campaign:
2 Boris Johnson 5 Theresa May 6 Nigel Farage 10 James Dyson 12 Kate Hoey 16 George Osborne 20 Philip Hammond 25 Lord Lawson 25 Steve Baker 25 Bernard Jenkin 25 Douglas Carswell 50 Dan Hannan 50 Paul Nuttall 66 Jeremy Corbyn 100 Philip Davies 100 Mark Reckless
196/7 now. Looks like I'll be watching England bat tomorrow!
But maybe not for very long.
Don't. I watched the England 1st innings collapse in the last Test. Hopefully we can get a lead chasing 250 or so.
Edit: and as I write that, Misbah suddenly wakes up and adds a pile of runs! Edit2: hopefully he will run out of partners. 224/8 now. Edit3: Got the bugger! 224/9, we might yet bat tonight!
I would much rather have a campaign that isn't about who is lying where. I would much prefer one where the public gets the best honest case from each side, without having to filter through everything.
I would prefer that too, but politics is politics - we are not going to get a campaign where any side accepts the other is being totally honest and positive, even if the other side thinks they are being so.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Aren't the Nats tiresome when the only dirge they know is 'London bad'.....
The Nat third-raters hate London because its success contrasts with their failed lives. Top-notch Nats like Salmond adore London and live there.
London and the South East are the destinations of choice for Scots moving to the rest of the UK. There are over 200,000 Scots in those regions combined.
It is possible to argue that London is the first global capital.
London or New York. I can't see any other contenders
On one measure, 'number of foreign born residents' both New York and London - with around three million apiece are twice as high as the next nearest city, Toronto. The only other European cities in the global top 17 (?) are Paris (440,000), Milan (240,000) and Birmingham (180,000). No German cities. Yet.
Aren't the Nats tiresome when the only dirge they know is 'London bad'.....
The Nat third-raters hate London because its success contrasts with their failed lives. Top-notch Nats like Salmond adore London and live there.
London and the South East are the destinations of choice for Scots moving to the rest of the UK. There are over 200,000 Scots in those regions combined.
Odd then that Scotland has one of the highest rates of people born in that land who choose to live somewhere else (1.15m) and 835,000 of them select the non-Scotland parts of the UK rather than outside the UK. SCOTLAND’S DIASPORA AND OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION 2009.
There are more Scots in England than any city in Scotland. It might sound surprising, but according to the latest census figures, there are about 750,000 people born in Scotland who live south of the border. That's more than the population of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very strong presence there. A condition of any deal will be a new constitutional settlement that up to now PP has refused to contemplate. Finishing second in a tight election gives C's the chance to form a government, so I doubt there'd be any formal deal with PP. More a Spanish equivalent of confidence and supply. And I would not rule out a deal with PSOE. The two parties have just done one in Andalucia.
Ciudadanos are socially and economically liberal, I doubt PSOE's membership would contemplate a formal deal with them anyway. They would probably do a confidence and supply deal with the largest party, in Andalucia that was the PSOE
We'll see. My guess is that if C's come second they'll prefer to do a deal with PSOE. The mood language around the deal in Andalucia certainly suggested that possibility.
I don't see any evidence of that, Ciudadanos want to cut taxes and keep spending down, policies anathema to the bulk of PSOE supporters, if they did a deal on such a platform PSOE would lose yet more voters to Podemos. They also oppose Catalan nationalism even if they want a better deal
PSOE's heartland is Andalucia and a deal was done there. It may cost some votes, but that is less of an issue under Spain's electoral system. C's leader is utterly scathing about Rajoy, especially over the various corruption scandals PP finds itself engulfed in and noticeably less critical of the relatively new PSOE leader. And a resolution of the Catalonia mess - which PP has done so much to create - would be a non-negotiable. As I said, we'll see. A lot will depend on whether C's come second or third on votes cast. But a deal with PSOE certainly would not be a surprise.
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Please do not confuse London with the rest of England. That London is, mostly, a dump I agree and, if forced to live in a city, I think I would prefer just about anywhere in Europe (except Paris, obviously) to it. However, London isn't England anymore than the east end of Glasgow is Scotland.
Hurst , I was being a bit generalist and provocative with the numpties , there are for sure many beautiful areas in England. It is the pathetic Tories on here trying to pretend that London is the capital of the world , rather than a base for laundering etc and whilst people may be drawn to the opportunities to graft money it is no Shangri La. No intelligent person , spotty teenagers apart, could imagine that the UK is anything like the country it was not so many years ago. We continue our downward decline apart from a privileged minority.
Of course if they leave Scotland they can live longer. "Life expectancy for those born in Scotland between 2010 and 2012 is 76.5 years for males and 80.7 years for females. This is the lowest of any of the four countries of the UK." "Topic Guide to: Life Expectancies" . UK National Statistics. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
Ladbrokes have some opening odds on who will lead the official LEAVE campaign:
2 Boris Johnson 5 Theresa May 6 Nigel Farage 10 James Dyson 12 Kate Hoey 16 George Osborne 20 Philip Hammond 25 Lord Lawson 25 Steve Baker 25 Bernard Jenkin 25 Douglas Carswell 50 Dan Hannan 50 Paul Nuttall 66 Jeremy Corbyn 100 Philip Davies 100 Mark Reckless
Of course if they leave Scotland they can live longer. "Life expectancy for those born in Scotland between 2010 and 2012 is 76.5 years for males and 80.7 years for females. This is the lowest of any of the four countries of the UK." "Topic Guide to: Life Expectancies" . UK National Statistics. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
Life expectancy in parts of Glasgow is some of the lowest in Europe.
(snip) Even then, you have to ask how you would stop him after 'victory' getting vengeance on the populations who resisted him, e.g. the Kurds. (*) _______________________________________ *You seem to be quite seriously misinformed on some key points. The Kurds are fighting alongside Syrian forces, against ISIS. So there won't be 'vengeance' against them. I would envisage them getting an autonomous region within Syria as a reward for their pains - I think Assad would resist this if he could, as he wants to keep Syria whole, but I suspect he wouldn't be in a position to. As for the others, I suspect they would get the same treatment as the thousands who've surrendered to the army so far - given a pardon and sent home.* _______________________________________
If you think on the balance of evidence that he did use chemical weapons, then supporting his regime becomes a much harder proposition as it is little different from the 'Islamist Extremists' that you rather perversely seem to think all the rebels are. __________________________________________ *I don't believe he did (having read both the report and the report author's follow up reservations), but if I did, it wouldn't change my view that Assad's regime is better than the alternative. Show me a 'moderate' group that doesn't fight alongside Al Nusra, ISIS or the others, that instead fights against ISIS as a greater threat, that doesn't do things like this: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/u-s-backed-moderate-rebels-put-alawite-women-in-cages-to-protect-themselves-from-airstrikes/ etc. - I'll be happy to assess them with you. Wiki has a list: * ___________________________________________
The problem is that the pro-Assad people have as little idea of what the end situation will be in Syria as the anti-Assad people. One thing is certain: it will not be Syria as it was pre-2011. And if not, what will it be? A coastal rump state reliant on Russia for support? A small state at constant war with an Islamist hinterland? A series of states ethnically cleansed of disagreeable populations, e.g. a Sunni state, a Shia state, an Alawite state, a Kurdish state? ____________________________________________ *If Assad stays, it will be a secular arab state, disastrously in need of rebuilding, reliant as never before on Russian and Iranian support, so even more strongly aligned with those two nations. That may not be to US (or Saudi, or Turkey) liking, but it's a problem entirely of their own making. They wanted to topple an unfriendly regime and replace it with a pliant one using irregular warfare - using armed groups. As a policy it was nothing short of evil, and if the result is a Shia/Russian arc in the Middle East, it will frankly be just desserts.* ______________________________________________
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Please do not confuse London with the rest of England. That London is, mostly, a dump I agree and, if forced to live in a city, I think I would prefer just about anywhere in Europe (except Paris, obviously) to it. However, London isn't England anymore than the east end of Glasgow is Scotland.
Hurst , I was being a bit generalist and provocative with the numpties , there are for sure many beautiful areas in England. It is the pathetic Tories on here trying to pretend that London is the capital of the world , rather than a base for laundering etc and whilst people may be drawn to the opportunities to graft money it is no Shangri La. No intelligent person , spotty teenagers apart, could imagine that the UK is anything like the country it was not so many years ago. We continue our downward decline apart from a privileged minority.
The UK is still the fifth largest economy in the world and one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, for a medium sized nation that is not bad. Rural England and indeed rural Scotland have many beautiful areas and Edinburgh is probably the most beautiful city in the UK alongside maybe Oxford or Bath but London is the only truly world city in the country and probably only just behind New York as the most powerful city on the planet
'Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.'
With 8% of the votes and less than 10% of the MEP's can you remind us of which directives in the past 5 years the UK has actually managed to block ?
Which has it wanted to? Again, I don't know. The UK has one of the single biggest voices in the EU. There is an argument for saying that we have repeatedly failed to use it to maximum effect. The interests of France and Germany look increasingly divergent, while many in southern and eastern Europe are not overenamoured of the German approach.
Since 1996 the UK has opposed 55 pieces of legislation at the Council of the EU and has lost every time.
That said, as Fullfact point out, it is difficult to quantify the behinds the scenes influence which prevents votes getting as far as the Council so it would be unfair to use that as the be all and end all of the failure of British influence.
But on that basic point of blocking legislation it didn't agree with at the final vote it has lost every time.
UK is a dump compared to Germany , you just need to look at life there. It is no coincidence most refugees want to go there. London is a hell hole , a bad mix of haves and lots of have nots , polarised and well overrated. Only blinkered English people think it is the capital of Europe.
Please do not confuse London with the rest of England. That London is, mostly, a dump I agree and, if forced to live in a city, I think I would prefer just about anywhere in Europe (except Paris, obviously) to it. However, London isn't England anymore than the east end of Glasgow is Scotland.
From me experience of living there in the early 1990s, London is what you make of it. If you have a little money, an open mind and the will, you can have a great time. If you don't have money, there's still many things to do (more so than out here in the relative sticks).
If you want London to be a dump, it will be. If you want London to be a vibrant, fun place, then it will be as well.
I just wish I'd made more of the opportunities I'd had when I lived there. In over four years, I never went to the IWM, and only went to the science museum once. I've been to both many times since I moved away ...
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
They were formed in Catalonia and have a very s
Ciudadanos are socially and economically liberal, I doubt PSOE's membership would contemplate a formal deal with them anyway. They would probably do a confidence and supply deal with the largest party, in Andalucia that was the PSOE
We'll see. My guess is that if C's come second they'll prefer to do a deal with PSOE. The mood language around the deal in Andalucia certainly suggested that possibility.
I don't see any evidence of that, Ciudadanos want to cut taxes and keep spending down, policies anathema to the bulk of PSOE supporters, if they did a deal on such a platform PSOE would lose yet more voters to Podemos. They also oppose Catalan nationalism even if they want a better deal
PSOE's heartland is Andalucia and a deal was done there. It may cost some votes, but that is less of an issue under Spain's electoral system. C's leader is utterly scathing about Rajoy, especially over the various corruption scandals PP finds itself engulfed in and noticeably less critical of the relatively new PSOE leader. And a resolution of the Catalonia mess - which PP has done so much to create - would be a non-negotiable. As I said, we'll see. A lot will depend on whether C's come second or third on votes cast. But a deal with PSOE certainly would not be a surprise.
The C's are essentially economically and socially liberal and, unlike Clegg in 2010, honest about it. If PSOE do a deal with them it will mean they will need to back the C's platform to cut corporation tax amongst other things and to cap the top rate of income tax at 40% (ie something even Osborne has not done in the present climate) it would probably lead the PSOE to suffer the same fate as PASOK in Greece with Podemos becoming Spain's Syriza and overtaking them as the main party of the centre left
Of course if they leave Scotland they can live longer. "Life expectancy for those born in Scotland between 2010 and 2012 is 76.5 years for males and 80.7 years for females. This is the lowest of any of the four countries of the UK." "Topic Guide to: Life Expectancies" . UK National Statistics. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
Life expectancy in parts of Glasgow is some of the lowest in Europe.
And yet the SNP regime is reducing Scottish NHS funding relative to the rest of the UK.
Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.
Indeed, Mr. Observer, and presumably there are examples where the UK has managed to influence EU law and rules when France and Germany disagreed. I am would like to hear of them. I struggle to think of any.
Has the free market in services been completed yet?
In my little world, the UK has batted its corner very effectively on the Unified Patent Court - threatening to scupper a deal unless one of the major chambers was situated here and getting exactly that. I can't tell you about other areas, but I suspect we are probably more effective in many ways than perhaps we think as the results are rarely headline news.
Fair go, Mr. Observer. We do hear a lot in the MSM about the UK's failures but almost nothing about its successes when negotiating with the EU. Now, whether that is because good news doesn't sell newspapers or because there are few successes to relate I do not know.
Of course some of our failures do show up the ghastly nature of the EU:
UK: We will agree to X only as long as you accept Y
Other Members: OK, it is a deal
ECJ: X in exchange for Y was only a political agreement and not lawfully binding, therefore the UK can get stuffed.
Comments
The "3 million jobs" lie/misrepresentation has been hugely damaging. However, even the author of the report, Iain Begg, describes it as being "pure Goebbels".
Rather amusingly it was Goebbels who said that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".
The lie/misrepresentation has been repeated across social media and has been used on Labour literature at the Euro elections and repeated by Nick Clegg on national television.
Will Straw had to agree to stop using it after being confronted by the author at a EU debate run by the Spectator.
http://order-order.com/2015/10/21/3-million-jobs-myth-debunked-by-author/
Do you deny that EFTA members of the EEA have a veto? Do you still falsely claim that if they exercise that veto they have to leave the EEA?
If you still hold to both of those positions then you are frankly beyond help.
Personally, I think that we would be big enough to negotiate a satisfactory trading arrangement with the EU in or out of the EEA. We are just too important a market to them. It is clear, however, that free trade will require compliance with that part of EU law that relates to the Single Market.
I suspect we would struggle to notice much of a difference which is why I refuse to get too wound up about it either way.
I'd have thought an EEA with the UK leading could move quickly to fundamentally renegotiate its relationship with the EU and perhaps with NAFTA and other trading blocs.
But more importantly, the EU leaders are not quite as integrationist as they like to make out. The small countries' leaders generally are - if you're a leading politician in Luxmbourg or Belgium or Latvia, really your only shot at the big time is integration. But people running Germany, France and Italy rather like the power they've got, and are not in a hurry to give it away. There is definitely an audience for pragmatic joint action without more than symbolic acts of union - rebranding passports, sure, giving up control of taxation, nah.
Happy for international trade deals, not happy for them to be shrouded in secrecy.
I'm personally moving further towards out of both the EU and EEA. Why implement so many rules for free trade with Europe when we can be setting up free trade with growing economics rather than shrinking ones?
As was mentioned down thread, Germany sells us enough cars and appliances for them to want to make something work. As an independent UK we are better off looking towards Australia, Canada, India and China for growth markets, than to an inward-looking, protectionist EU determined to drive towards a superstate no matter what the people think.
You stated that Article 100 and following of the EEA Agreement said that failure to implement a directive would lead to suspension.
Article 100 states:
"The EC Commission shall ensure experts of the EFTA States as wide a participation as possible according to the areas
concerned, in the preparatory stage of draft measures to be submitted subsequently to the committees which assist the EC
Commission in the exercise of its executive powers. In this regard, when drawing up draft measures the EC Commission
shall refer to experts of the EFTA States on the same basis as it refers to experts of the EC Member States.
In the cases where the Council of the European Communities is seized in accordance with the procedure applicable to the
type of committee involved, the EC Commission shall transmit to the Council of the European Communities the views of the
experts of the EFTA States"
Nothing about suspension there.
In fact the whole of the section you refer to from Article 100 to 104 makes no mention whatsoever of the suspension of a country.
What it refers to is the suspension of the section of the legislation that cannot be agreed upon between the EU and the EFTA members of the EEA - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I am afraid you have failed to read your own source properly. You have been blinded by your own opinion.
The days when the UK set the rules for world trade have unfortunately gone and they are not coming back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Edit: 196/6 now
They do not.
They refer to the suspension of the relevant legislation until agreed by all members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_born
Aren't the Nats tiresome when the only dirge they know is 'London bad'.....
'Presumably there are examples of EEA countries having practical influence over EU lawmaking if that influence exists. I have no idea whether they do or not, but being consulted is very different to having a say. One is passive, the other is active.'
With 8% of the votes and less than 10% of the MEP's can you remind us of which directives in the past 5 years the UK has actually managed to block ?
SCOTLAND’S DIASPORA AND OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION 2009.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/thenorwegianway
This first. Why on earth would I 'fact check' something anecdotal (and stated as such) like that? How would I even do it - I don't even have contact details for this guy. I thought it was an interesting and entertaining addition to the discussion. I still think that. The fact that you've chosen this thin gruel to attack me over is really quite bizarre.
As for gullibility, what is it except a meaningless value judgement? The opposite of gullibility is presumably a pathological difficulty/inability to accept changed circumstances and assimilate new paradigms, because such a radical change in world view would distress the individual too much. An example would be the imperial Chinese refusing to accept that their world had changed and they were now technologically inferior. I don't see that as a strength.
Has the free market in services been completed yet?
It might sound surprising, but according to the latest census figures, there are about 750,000 people born in Scotland who live south of the border. That's more than the population of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27655496
http://londonscots.net/2014/04/30/scottish-population-in-london/
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/guido-labours-by-election-hopeful-isnt-all-she-seems/
EFTA becomes a different beast with the UK in it, and there must be a possibility of other defections from the €zone avoiders.
The impact of our departure is obviously massively different for Ireland compared to Latvia, and Germany compared to Greece so the likelihood of the EU having a common response is just as improbable as it is on everything of significance at the moment.
2 Boris Johnson
5 Theresa May
6 Nigel Farage
10 James Dyson
12 Kate Hoey
16 George Osborne
20 Philip Hammond
25 Lord Lawson
25 Steve Baker
25 Bernard Jenkin
25 Douglas Carswell
50 Dan Hannan
50 Paul Nuttall
66 Jeremy Corbyn
100 Philip Davies
100 Mark Reckless
It was quite easy: the Britannic was launched after the Titanic, and the first of the ships, the Olympic, was launched a year before the Titanic, so was hardly an elderly vessel.
You even went for appeal to authority, with (from memory) a "naval architect" who had access to the archives.
Given that these facts could be discovered in a couple of minutes on Wiki, it's a sign that you are eager to believe and spread just about any old horesesh@t conspiracy theory that you come across.
It shows your repeatedly-stated fact- and source-checking is just a load of baloney.
It should be a million to one
Edit: and as I write that, Misbah suddenly wakes up and adds a pile of runs!
Edit2: hopefully he will run out of partners. 224/8 now.
Edit3: Got the bugger! 224/9, we might yet bat tonight!
"Life expectancy for those born in Scotland between 2010 and 2012 is 76.5 years for males and 80.7 years for females. This is the lowest of any of the four countries of the UK."
"Topic Guide to: Life Expectancies" . UK National Statistics. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
That said, as Fullfact point out, it is difficult to quantify the behinds the scenes influence which prevents votes getting as far as the Council so it would be unfair to use that as the be all and end all of the failure of British influence.
But on that basic point of blocking legislation it didn't agree with at the final vote it has lost every time.
If you want London to be a dump, it will be. If you want London to be a vibrant, fun place, then it will be as well.
I just wish I'd made more of the opportunities I'd had when I lived there. In over four years, I never went to the IWM, and only went to the science museum once. I've been to both many times since I moved away ...
Floodlights are on and looking bright. Hopefully they will close now nd not subject England to a couple of overs in the rapidly fading light.
Of course some of our failures do show up the ghastly nature of the EU:
UK: We will agree to X only as long as you accept Y
Other Members: OK, it is a deal
ECJ: X in exchange for Y was only a political agreement and not lawfully binding, therefore the UK can get stuffed.