Britain's position is closer to Germany's than most EU states so I think the Germans would indeed be actively resistant to the UK leaving (sorry for mixing up Britain and UK there) not just for the monetary contribution which is unquantifiable with any accuracy and not really the point.
Spot on Bryan. The Germans see us as allies with ''northern European'' values and sensibilities and are a moderating influence on the diverse fellow member states. They more than anyone are desperate for the UK to remain an influence (and huge net contributor)
Spot on Bryan. The Germans see us as allies with ''northern European'' values and sensibilities and are a moderating influence on the diverse fellow member states. They more than anyone are desperate for the UK to remain an influence (and huge net contributor)
They also love having us as a lightening rod when difficult decisions have to be made. If Britain leaves the Germans are going to be more open in championing unpopular fiscally conservative policies. The Greek flustercluck has reinforced how uncomfortable that position is.
With the Guardian left (Monbiot, Jones et al) turning against the EU, we're now seeing 1976-style alliance between the hard left and the hard right. Not sure whether this makes a no vote more or less likely.
This is brilliant. The Europhiles who painted anyone who protested to the ceding of more powers and authority to the EU as loonies or racists are now protesting that the EU is actually using these powers to reign in a rogue state. Thank God that Brown, in his only stroke of brilliance, ignored these vandals when they were begging him to ditch the pound and join the Euro.
I imagine a lot of lefties on here voted for Corbyn. The EU will continue to balls up everything it gets involved with yet they'll still stick to their Eastern Europe beliefs that plunged everyone into poverty during the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Continuation in the European 'community' should depend on reform. No needed reform, we should leave and if that means Scotland clamouring for independence, so be it. We have a situation now whereby a pissant little nation like Estonia, with about half the population of a decent sized English borough, can dictate terms to the UK. They have a veto on, for example, our approach to welfare reform for foreign nationals .. excuse the reversion to expletive .. but w t f. The Europeans want desperately us to stay in. Cameron should take advantage of this and DEMAND reform of some of the more idiosyncratic and downright undemocratic rules and laws that work against British/English interests. Cameron talks big, he is eloquent and talks a good fight. I am disappointed in him. Perhaps he has ulterior motives to continually cave in to the demands and refusals of the other EEC members
"We are at the time of year when thoughts in families turn to the Christmas quiz. So here are ten questions which it might be useful for supporters of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union to try to answer."
That's probably the most tenuous Christmas link I've seen this year, and that's saying something.
I don't believe leaving the EU will make much difference to anything. We'll just end up with exactly the same treaties individually negotiated on an ad-hoc basis.
The only way England can leave Europe is to move Britain across the Atlantic to somewhere off the east coast of the USA.
When the technology to achieve that exists it might be worth having a referendum about what we do!
No, UKIP for me is a a side issue. But it ought to be a central issue for anyone who supports UKIP, since leaving the EU is its central obsession. And in case you haven't noticed, the EU issue is top of today's headlines, and there will be a referendum on the matter. Coincidentally today we learn of a "split" in a party that has just one MP.
That's why I "dug it up".
My obsession with @LenGlover is that he is far and away the most principled and thoughtful of the "EU-out" people on this forum, and I am genuinely interested in how he'd answer those questions. I'm interested in anyone else's answers too, but it seems they are just too awkward.
Jacob Rees Mogg has been out in force this week. Both news night and QT. Separate to this there was a great exchange between him and Dimbleby on QT last night re: heathrow. Quite amusing if you get a chance to watch it.
My views are still way better in than out. The world has changed, this planet has got a lot smaller over the last few years and will continue to do so. The economic, political and social landscape for me dictates we are an important partner in Europe as much as Europe is an important partner for us.
Much is said about the amount of exports made by the UK to the rest of the Union and there are arguments suggesting that a Brexit won't make a lot of difference to that.
Where my concern lies is with the service industry provided by the City of London and in particular the banking industry.
At present The City is the main player in banking within the EU with Frankfurt looking on enviously. A Brexit would seriously jeopardise the advantage we currently have. A UK outside of the Union would give the Germans, French and Italians the excuse they need to switch their main business through Frankfurt and not London.
Take away the huge revenue the banks bring in and we are straight away in trouble.
This is my main concern regarding an out vote. Amongst other things.
No, UKIP for me is a a side issue. But it ought to be a central issue for anyone who supports UKIP, since leaving the EU is its central obsession. And in case you haven't noticed, the EU issue is top of today's headlines, and there will be a referendum on the matter. Coincidentally today we learn of a "split" in a party that has just one MP.
That's why I "dug it up".
My obsession with @LenGlover is that he is far and away the most principled and thoughtful of the "EU-out" people on this forum, and I am genuinely interested in how he'd answer those questions. I'm interested in anyone else's answers too, but it seems they are just too awkward.
Thanks for clarifying that, over to you @LenGlover
I'm not that impressed with the quiz if it's supposed to scare the sceptics.
Q1 - Do we buy BMWs because Germany is a fellow EU state, or because they make cracking cars. Germans will still want to buy what we are good at producing or supplying. How much of the 40%/50% of exports to the EU are we going to lose? We already send over 30% to India and Russia, add China to the mix and plenty of scope to make good any marginal reduction in EU trade. Global corporate interests, not states, dictate where trade goes.
Q2 - Does anyone really think that EU countries will go for sub standard services from their EU neighbours, or still buy the best? Again, corporate interests dictate where services are sourced to best deliver for the shareholders, not a bumbling bureaucracy like the EU.
Q3 - We have as much in common with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Lichtenstein as Hawaii. We will negotiate what works for us not what works for a different country.
Q4 - The EU approach to tariffs was borne of the post war global protectionist policies. Modern tariff arrangements are based on mutually agreed terms that boost trade, not protect domestic inefficient production. Why is it assumed the EU, as a sinking economy, can negotiate better terms than could the UK when it has to accommodate dozens of different conflicting interests.
Q5 - We pay subsidies and the EU decide how they are distributed. Take away the EU subsidy money and we use the same money to decide what and how much we subsidise any given industry.
Q6 - Biggest joke question. Since when has the EU had a united foreign policy or offer any security apart from on the coat tails of NATO.
Q7 - And the point about how much Thatcher paid as an EU contribution is what?
Q8 - Another red herring. We control our borders and why shouldn't we.
Q9 - If Scotland is able to convince itself that independence from UK on the grounds of self determination is desirable, yet become a state within a federated Europe is even more desirable, the people deserve what they wish for.
Q10 - No idea. Is it suggested that a hypothetical scenario that could upset Irish nationalists dictates whether we should be in the EU or not?
I'm still "remain" but with little enthusiasm and I may change. There seems to be no end in sight to massive net migration every year it's very hard to see how the UK's infrastructure can cope. It's hard to feel much solidarity with increasingly right-wing Eastern European countries who defend to the death the rights of their citizens while doing everything they can to block a deal on Syrian refugees. Against that is the huge risk we would face in the loss of London's status as a financial centre as PA says above (though pro-Europeans gave similar warnings when we were debating joining the Euro) and the fact that we will to sign up to the same regulations as we do now but without any say in them.
As noted in QT last night. Cameron's demands are pathetically unambitious and it looks like he won't even get them.
A little Christmas Quiz for all you Eurosceptics. Would be genuinely interested in your answers, especially those of @LenGlover.
That's not a quiz, it's a feeble and last gasp attempt by 'Our man in Strasbourg' to protect his fellow Francophiles so they can keep their noses in the trough in the European gravy train.
Because they think they know what's best for us.
It must be galling for you that the only hope you have of the U.K. Voting 'yes' to Europe rests on the shoulders of a Conservative Prime Minister attempting to brow beat some newly formed Balkan nation 'supremo' into accepting that the vast majority of the British population don't want to be dictated to as to how they live their lives.
It's also highly amusing at your continued fascination at slagging off UKIP. You know, that party that actually achieved 1.5 million more votes that your beloved Lib Dems.
The only 100% pro European party in May lost 49 of it's 57 seats.
That Irish question is almost entirely facetious. Both Ireland and the U.K. are outside of Schengen so all immigration into Ireland and subsequently the UK is passport controlled. Eurosceptics do not take issue with the free movement of EU citizens, it is the fact that they are free to live, work or claim welfare whilst here. Irish citizens already have special privileges that other EU citizens do not in the UK, this would be unlikely to change in the event of Brexit.
The whole Scottish independence thing is also irrelevant. Scotland already voted to stay in a UK that is likely to exit the EU and under no circumstances should another independence referendum be considered for another 30 years at least. I imagine some parts of London will overwhelmingly vote to stay within the EU, should we allow Lambeth and Tower Hamlets to have independence referendums as well?
Also, having read back through the quiz, the main running theme throughout is that a Brexit would be worse than the status quo because the split would involve some paperwork, which is like saying the Magna Carta wasn't worth the bother because the authors had to go to the effort of drawing up a list of changes.
all immigration into Ireland and subsequently the UK is passport controlled.
You're playing with semantics here. There's passport-free travel between Ireland and the UK at all border crossings (including many airports). In an exit scenario there would be free movement for Europeans to Ireland and, potentially, an existing passport-free zone with the UK. The question is whether the passport-free zone would remain. It's not that long since border crossings in Northern Ireland had army/police checking documents.
Your comment on the Scotland question is nonsense. Scotland didn't vote to join the UK in leaving the EU. The question of EU membership was a key issue that the independence campaign had no answer for and that contributed to a No vote.
Nobody's tried to answer the questions yet. I might give it a go tomorrow or Sunday while nursing a hangover.
IA - the point I was making on the Ireland point is that if anyone has entered Ireland they can easily cross into the UK regardless of whether they have EU citizenship or not. However if a non-EU citizen enters the UK via Ireland without showing a passport they still will have to abide by any visa-restrictions, assuming they are legally allowed to be in the UK at all. This would not change in the event of Brexit. The same applies to entering the UK via ferry; the last 3 ferries I used to get from Europe to the UK not a single time did my passport get looked at. Admittedly the last one was around 10 years ago but it's legally the same situation.
My point on Scotland is completely valid despite your ignorance. At the time of the referendum, Scottish voters knew a Brexit referendum was coming and a vote to remain in the UK was implicitly a vote to leave the EU along with the UK in the event of Brexit. The SNP's policy prior to the No vote was that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, not that they could call another referendum if they felt like it.
On Ireland, I was talking about EU citizens travelling.
On Scotland, I lived in Scotland at the time, followed the campaign and voted in the referendum, thanks. EU membership was one of the few issues on which the No side strengthened their position through the campaign, helped in part by the Spain/Catalunya debate. The union side successfully presented the narrative that a Yes vote meant leaving the EU while a No vote meant working with the rest of the UK to reform it from within. You might agree or not, but that's how the campaign went on the ground.
On Ireland there is no difference between EU and non-EU citizens entering the UK via the Irish land border, the difference is whether they are able to settle/work/claim benefits, which would affect EU citizens on Brexit but would have little material effect on the land border controls since we already quite happily allow non-EU citizens to cross into N. Ireland.
You haven't contradicted anything I have already posted on Scotland.
Regarding the other 8, they largely hinge on whether the extra paperwork involved in a Brexit is worth the benefits of a Brexit, which I already pointed out is a facile argument.
Basically, the whole thing is a back of a fag packet exercise done by a self-important bureaucrat who thinks he is cleverly pointing out the flaws of the Out campaign when instead he is just demonstrating what a pseud he is. The real issue is that he obviously fails to understand even the basic complexities of the issue yet he has received plenty of money for his supposed expertise on the matter.
IA - the point I was making on the Ireland point is that if anyone has entered Ireland they can easily cross into the UK regardless of whether they have EU citizenship or not. However if a non-EU citizen enters the UK via Ireland without showing a passport they still will have to abide by any visa-restrictions, assuming they are legally allowed to be in the UK at all. This would not change in the event of Brexit. The same applies to entering the UK via ferry; the last 3 ferries I used to get from Europe to the UK not a single time did my passport get looked at. Admittedly the last one was around 10 years ago but it's legally the same situation.
My point on Scotland is completely valid despite your ignorance. At the time of the referendum, Scottish voters knew a Brexit referendum was coming and a vote to remain in the UK was implicitly a vote to leave the EU along with the UK in the event of Brexit. The SNP's policy prior to the No vote was that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, not that they could call another referendum if they felt like it.
passport checked twice going out and twice coming in last time I used a cross channel ferry about 9 months ago.
IA - the point I was making on the Ireland point is that if anyone has entered Ireland they can easily cross into the UK regardless of whether they have EU citizenship or not. However if a non-EU citizen enters the UK via Ireland without showing a passport they still will have to abide by any visa-restrictions, assuming they are legally allowed to be in the UK at all. This would not change in the event of Brexit. The same applies to entering the UK via ferry; the last 3 ferries I used to get from Europe to the UK not a single time did my passport get looked at. Admittedly the last one was around 10 years ago but it's legally the same situation.
My point on Scotland is completely valid despite your ignorance. At the time of the referendum, Scottish voters knew a Brexit referendum was coming and a vote to remain in the UK was implicitly a vote to leave the EU along with the UK in the event of Brexit. The SNP's policy prior to the No vote was that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, not that they could call another referendum if they felt like it.
passport checked twice going out and twice coming in last time I used a cross channel ferry about 9 months ago.
Fair enough. I'd heard they'd tightened things up with all the nonsense happening at Calais and the events in Paris have probably meant security has been tightened up even more. The point I was making was that 10 years the border laws were the same as they were today but there were some gaps in enforcement.
Comments
The Germans see us as allies with ''northern European'' values and sensibilities and are a moderating influence on the diverse fellow member states.
They more than anyone are desperate for the UK to remain an influence (and huge net contributor)
We have a situation now whereby a pissant little nation like Estonia, with about half the population of a decent sized English borough, can dictate terms to the UK. They have a veto on, for example, our approach to welfare reform for foreign nationals .. excuse the reversion to expletive .. but w t f.
The Europeans want desperately us to stay in. Cameron should take advantage of this and DEMAND reform of some of the more idiosyncratic and downright undemocratic rules and laws that work against British/English interests. Cameron talks big, he is eloquent and talks a good fight. I am disappointed in him. Perhaps he has ulterior motives to continually cave in to the demands and refusals of the other EEC members
That's probably the most tenuous Christmas link I've seen this year, and that's saying something.
Or chopped in half, one for Farage and the other for Carswell.
The only way England can leave Europe is to move Britain across the Atlantic to somewhere off the east coast of the USA.
When the technology to achieve that exists it might be worth having a referendum about what we do!
What's your obsession with @LenGlover about?
That's why I "dug it up".
My obsession with @LenGlover is that he is far and away the most principled and thoughtful of the "EU-out" people on this forum, and I am genuinely interested in how he'd answer those questions. I'm interested in anyone else's answers too, but it seems they are just too awkward.
My views are still way better in than out. The world has changed, this planet has got a lot smaller over the last few years and will continue to do so. The economic, political and social landscape for me dictates we are an important partner in Europe as much as Europe is an important partner for us.
Where my concern lies is with the service industry provided by the City of London and in particular the banking industry.
At present The City is the main player in banking within the EU with Frankfurt looking on enviously. A Brexit would seriously jeopardise the advantage we currently have. A UK outside of the Union would give the Germans, French and Italians the excuse they need to switch their main business through Frankfurt and not London.
Take away the huge revenue the banks bring in and we are straight away in trouble.
This is my main concern regarding an out vote. Amongst other things.
Q1 - Do we buy BMWs because Germany is a fellow EU state, or because they make cracking cars. Germans will still want to buy what we are good at producing or supplying. How much of the 40%/50% of exports to the EU are we going to lose? We already send over 30% to India and Russia, add China to the mix and plenty of scope to make good any marginal reduction in EU trade. Global corporate interests, not states, dictate where trade goes.
Q2 - Does anyone really think that EU countries will go for sub standard services from their EU neighbours, or still buy the best? Again, corporate interests dictate where services are sourced to best deliver for the shareholders, not a bumbling bureaucracy like the EU.
Q3 - We have as much in common with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Lichtenstein as Hawaii. We will negotiate what works for us not what works for a different country.
Q4 - The EU approach to tariffs was borne of the post war global protectionist policies. Modern tariff arrangements are based on mutually agreed terms that boost trade, not protect domestic inefficient production. Why is it assumed the EU, as a sinking economy, can negotiate better terms than could the UK when it has to accommodate dozens of different conflicting interests.
Q5 - We pay subsidies and the EU decide how they are distributed. Take away the EU subsidy money and we use the same money to decide what and how much we subsidise any given industry.
Q6 - Biggest joke question. Since when has the EU had a united foreign policy or offer any security apart from on the coat tails of NATO.
Q7 - And the point about how much Thatcher paid as an EU contribution is what?
Q8 - Another red herring. We control our borders and why shouldn't we.
Q9 - If Scotland is able to convince itself that independence from UK on the grounds of self determination is desirable, yet become a state within a federated Europe is even more desirable, the people deserve what they wish for.
Q10 - No idea. Is it suggested that a hypothetical scenario that could upset Irish nationalists dictates whether we should be in the EU or not?
As noted in QT last night. Cameron's demands are pathetically unambitious and it looks like he won't even get them.
Because they think they know what's best for us.
It must be galling for you that the only hope you have of the U.K. Voting 'yes' to Europe rests on the shoulders of a Conservative Prime Minister attempting to brow beat some newly formed Balkan nation 'supremo' into accepting that the vast majority of the British population don't want to be dictated to as to how they live their lives.
It's also highly amusing at your continued fascination at slagging off UKIP. You know, that party that actually achieved 1.5 million more votes that your beloved Lib Dems.
The only 100% pro European party in May lost 49 of it's 57 seats.
The whole Scottish independence thing is also irrelevant. Scotland already voted to stay in a UK that is likely to exit the EU and under no circumstances should another independence referendum be considered for another 30 years at least. I imagine some parts of London will overwhelmingly vote to stay within the EU, should we allow Lambeth and Tower Hamlets to have independence referendums as well?
Also, having read back through the quiz, the main running theme throughout is that a Brexit would be worse than the status quo because the split would involve some paperwork, which is like saying the Magna Carta wasn't worth the bother because the authors had to go to the effort of drawing up a list of changes.
Your comment on the Scotland question is nonsense. Scotland didn't vote to join the UK in leaving the EU. The question of EU membership was a key issue that the independence campaign had no answer for and that contributed to a No vote.
Nobody's tried to answer the questions yet. I might give it a go tomorrow or Sunday while nursing a hangover.
My point on Scotland is completely valid despite your ignorance. At the time of the referendum, Scottish voters knew a Brexit referendum was coming and a vote to remain in the UK was implicitly a vote to leave the EU along with the UK in the event of Brexit. The SNP's policy prior to the No vote was that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, not that they could call another referendum if they felt like it.
Will have a look if and when I can.
On Scotland, I lived in Scotland at the time, followed the campaign and voted in the referendum, thanks. EU membership was one of the few issues on which the No side strengthened their position through the campaign, helped in part by the Spain/Catalunya debate. The union side successfully presented the narrative that a Yes vote meant leaving the EU while a No vote meant working with the rest of the UK to reform it from within. You might agree or not, but that's how the campaign went on the ground.
There were 8 other questions though.
You haven't contradicted anything I have already posted on Scotland.
Regarding the other 8, they largely hinge on whether the extra paperwork involved in a Brexit is worth the benefits of a Brexit, which I already pointed out is a facile argument.
Basically, the whole thing is a back of a fag packet exercise done by a self-important bureaucrat who thinks he is cleverly pointing out the flaws of the Out campaign when instead he is just demonstrating what a pseud he is. The real issue is that he obviously fails to understand even the basic complexities of the issue yet he has received plenty of money for his supposed expertise on the matter.