Funny how Europhiles deride any mention of the fact that UKIP won the MEP elections because 'MEPs are meaningless'. What's the point in having them at all? Just to give the impression that the EU is in anyway democratic?
That's your opinion though isn't it. I certainly don't agree with it.
Well no it's not my opinion, someone else said earlier that Euro elections are meaningless as a defence of the EU, which struck me as absurd on some level.
Funny how Europhiles deride any mention of the fact that UKIP won the MEP elections because 'MEPs are meaningless'. What's the point in having them at all? Just to give the impression that the EU is in anyway democratic?
That's your opinion though isn't it. I certainly don't agree with it.
Well no it's not my opinion, someone else said earlier that Euro elections are meaningless as a defence of the EU, which struck me as absurd on some level.
No worries. The main issue I find is that both sides are completely polarised and tribal. Europhiles refuse to accept any criticism of the current set-up despite a decade's worth of cock-ups and the main voices of the out campaign cannot seem to appreciate that an exit might not necessarily be a smooth transition. I am firmly of the opinion however that in certain circumstances the UK would be better off outside the EU, dependent on what threats of exit are real and what threats are hollow.
Funny how Europhiles deride any mention of the fact that UKIP won the MEP elections because 'MEPs are meaningless'. What's the point in having them at all? Just to give the impression that the EU is in anyway democratic?
That's your opinion though isn't it. I certainly don't agree with it.
Well no it's not my opinion, someone else said earlier that Euro elections are meaningless as a defence of the EU, which struck me as absurd on some level.
Who said they were "meaningless", and how was this used in the context of supporting the EU? On the past three pages, you're the only person who's used the word "meaningless".
No worries. The main issue I find is that both sides are completely polarised and tribal. Europhiles refuse to accept any criticism of the current set-up despite a decade's worth of cock-ups and the main voices of the out campaign cannot seem to appreciate that an exit might not necessarily be a smooth transition. I am firmly of the opinion however that in certain circumstances the UK would be better off outside the EU, dependent on what threats of exit are real and what threats are hollow.
John Major on the Marr show today disproved that claim. Well worth a look.
I don't know how you characterise a Europhile, but most I know are like John Major.They recognise there is a lot wrong with the EU but that the way you fix it is by taking part. Finding your allies (we have many, on many issues) and finding shared ground. That's how Europe works, always has done.
What you don't do is what Cameron has done with his ridiculous 4 year no benefit demand. He's instantly pissed off the Poles and others outside the eurozone who are not so keen on "ever closer union". WTF? If he had demanded a year he'd be home and dry already on that, not least because that's what most countries already do, more or less. I really thought Cameron was smarter than that
No worries. The main issue I find is that both sides are completely polarised and tribal. Europhiles refuse to accept any criticism of the current set-up despite a decade's worth of cock-ups and the main voices of the out campaign cannot seem to appreciate that an exit might not necessarily be a smooth transition. I am firmly of the opinion however that in certain circumstances the UK would be better off outside the EU, dependent on what threats of exit are real and what threats are hollow.
John Major on the Marr show today disproved that claim. Well worth a look.
I don't know how you characterise a Europhile, but most I know are like John Major.They recognise there is a lot wrong with the EU but that the way you fix it is by taking part. Finding your allies (we have many, on many issues) and finding shared ground. That's how Europe works, always has done.
What you don't do is what Cameron has done with his ridiculous 4 year no benefit demand. He's instantly pissed off the Poles and others outside the eurozone who are not so keen on "ever closer union". WTF? If he had demanded a year he'd be home and dry already on that, not least because that's what most countries already do, more or less. I really thought Cameron was smarter than that
Isn't it a negotiation though ? Asks for four, gets one. He can come back and play the role of the hero who got the UK a better deal and the Europeans can show that they didn't let the UK walk all over them.
Prague - I know not all people leaning towards 'In' are so blinkered/tribal on this issue but amongst the most prominent Europhiles, they are incredibly dismissive of any criticism of the EU. This includes Cameron who flippantly referred to the main anti-EU party as racists, loonies and fruit cakes. That's why I took issue with the quiz you posted - the author clearly had nothing but contempt for Eurosceptic views because if he had ever bothered to read anything by leading Out supporters he would have answers to most if not all of his questions. Instead he decided to paint the entire Out movement as one which has no answers to anything. I guess it worked for the No campaign in the Scottish referendum though.
On balance, there are plenty of vocal Out supporters whose reasons for Out are complete rubbish though and cemented in deep-rooted nationalism and xenophobia.
I voted against in the original vote, and have yet to meet anyone who voted for. I have still not changed my mind and I am still of the opinion the vote was rigged, but how do you prove it?
No worries. The main issue I find is that both sides are completely polarised and tribal. Europhiles refuse to accept any criticism of the current set-up despite a decade's worth of cock-ups and the main voices of the out campaign cannot seem to appreciate that an exit might not necessarily be a smooth transition. I am firmly of the opinion however that in certain circumstances the UK would be better off outside the EU, dependent on what threats of exit are real and what threats are hollow.
John Major on the Marr show today disproved that claim. Well worth a look.
I don't know how you characterise a Europhile, but most I know are like John Major.They recognise there is a lot wrong with the EU but that the way you fix it is by taking part. Finding your allies (we have many, on many issues) and finding shared ground. That's how Europe works, always has done.
What you don't do is what Cameron has done with his ridiculous 4 year no benefit demand. He's instantly pissed off the Poles and others outside the eurozone who are not so keen on "ever closer union". WTF? If he had demanded a year he'd be home and dry already on that, not least because that's what most countries already do, more or less. I really thought Cameron was smarter than that
Isn't it a negotiation though ? Asks for four, gets one. He can come back and play the role of the hero who got the UK a better deal and the Europeans can show that they didn't let the UK walk all over them.
Well that may be what we Brits think of as negotiation, but it is more suited to a Middle Eastern bazaar than Brussels. And I don't think the outcome will be as you suggest. He'll come back with one and the swiveleyes will say he failed. Meanwhile the Poles, who are a stroppy bunch, may be less inclined to back him on his other issues.
Where the hell did he get four years from? Bill Cash?
No worries. The main issue I find is that both sides are completely polarised and tribal. Europhiles refuse to accept any criticism of the current set-up despite a decade's worth of cock-ups and the main voices of the out campaign cannot seem to appreciate that an exit might not necessarily be a smooth transition. I am firmly of the opinion however that in certain circumstances the UK would be better off outside the EU, dependent on what threats of exit are real and what threats are hollow.
John Major on the Marr show today disproved that claim. Well worth a look.
I don't know how you characterise a Europhile, but most I know are like John Major.They recognise there is a lot wrong with the EU but that the way you fix it is by taking part. Finding your allies (we have many, on many issues) and finding shared ground. That's how Europe works, always has done.
What you don't do is what Cameron has done with his ridiculous 4 year no benefit demand. He's instantly pissed off the Poles and others outside the eurozone who are not so keen on "ever closer union". WTF? If he had demanded a year he'd be home and dry already on that, not least because that's what most countries already do, more or less. I really thought Cameron was smarter than that
Yes, I saw the John Major interview. I found it a little peculiar.
He spent the majority of the interview agreeing with the many faults of the EU, the fact that we can't really change much at all and then insisted we were better off remaining in.
All sounded a bit RD/KM/KF to me. Yes the Belgians are terrible there are so many problems, but we'd be even worse off without the Belgians.
His logic seemed to tie in with the RD supporter logic. It's shite, but it'll be even worse without the EU/RD.
I voted against in the original vote, and have yet to meet anyone who voted for. I have still not changed my mind and I am still of the opinion the vote was rigged, but how do you prove it?
I voted against in the original vote, and have yet to meet anyone who voted for. I have still not changed my mind and I am still of the opinion the vote was rigged, but how do you prove it?
Academic apologist for Thatcher's early 80s policies which chucked 3 million on the dole. I'll swerve on that.
So you attack the source but not dispute the content? This is the kind of tribalism I am referring to that is poisoning what is an incredibly important debate. This is akin to disputing Dawkins' academic work in science because you disagree with his religious views. I know you are smart enough to know this is a fallacy.
Prague Addick, I cringe at how weak your retorts are.
We're a country split down the middle on the EU issue, yet only one mainstream party represents half the electorate on this!
I really cannot understand those who wish to stay in. There appears to be no economic, social or environmental loss to leaving the EU. So what are we waiting for?
Which mainstream party is this ? Do you mean the one with a single MP ?
Yeah the one who got 4 million votes
And whose charismatic leader failed to get elected. UKIP are a busted flush. Either way the referendum goes they are done for. If it's a Brexit then they are job done and the only policy they have is irrelevant. If it's a vote to stay in then the people have spoken and interest will wain or they can continue with their one MP even more marginalised than they are now.
I seem to remember the same being said about the SNP and look how that has played out post referendum. Seems rather foolish to write UKIP off this early or perhaps wishful thinking on your part.
As for the jibes about having only one MP, that's a reflection of how broken our electoral system is and in no way represents UKIP's support.
But I suppose it suits you to twist it the other way round to imply that the 3rd largest party somehow isn't mainstream.
Sorry but that's very amusing. "Party" of one ex no mark Tory who is split from the only person in the "party" that anyone outside of parliament has ever heard of. Mainstream my arse.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I believe that a party that won the European election followed by getting the third most votes a year later in the general election is mainstream.
When you say "won the European election" do you mean "had a handful of representatives elected to the European parliament and then stole a living from us by not bothering to represent anyone, preferring to stay at home being patted on the back by their peculiar 1950s fans"?
I believe a person who throws logs is known as a tosser. Have you ever thrown logs?
No, I'll just lol you this time as clearly I have upset yesterday with some basic facts and I wouldn't want to ruin your Sunday.
When I said they "won the European election" I meant they got the most votes and the most seats, it's basic democracy perhaps you should research it a bit.
You say they "had a handful of representatives elected", again perhaps you should do a bit more research as there were in fact 24 UKIP MEPs elected.
Feel free to flag this if it makes you feel better, seeing as it nearly Christmas and I know it's depressing enough being a Charlton fan currently, I wouldn't want to add to your misery.
No, you didn't upset me. I thought the flags were funny, including yours. I think UKIP are funny, but it's a pity they are getting paid public money to do f*** all.
Loads of people get taxpayer money for either doing nothing or actively harming people, at least UKIP are upfront about it.
I voted against in the original vote, and have yet to meet anyone who voted for. I have still not changed my mind and I am still of the opinion the vote was rigged, but how do you prove it?
I voted yes in the original vote and I can honestly say I have never met anyone who admits to voting no in that vote.
Academic apologist for Thatcher's early 80s policies which chucked 3 million on the dole. I'll swerve on that.
So you attack the source but not dispute the content? This is the kind of tribalism I am referring to that is poisoning what is an incredibly important debate. This is akin to disputing Dawkins' academic work in science because you disagree with his religious views. I know you are smart enough to know this is a fallacy.
No, I haven't viewed the content. I've never in the last 33 years found anything of value in his pronouncements - on politics and economics, which is what this argument is about. Your Dawkins analogy doesn't work, therefore. I respect people like John Major despite never having voted Tory, because they are at least not little Englanders, they see the way the world is going and embrace it. I also respect those people on the Labour side who are eurosceptic because they think the EU is a rich mans club. I disagree with them but at least again they have honourable goals.
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.
No @Dippenhall definitely has, and with his usual thoroughness. I was genuinely interested to hear the other side's response, and would like to think about them. That's what the whole bloody referendum lark is supposed to be about. Bu it's interesting that with Len excused, only Eddie Firmani Dippenhall wanted to rise to the challenge of those questions.
Your response to his answers featured the phrase "swerved the question" so many times. That's what I was getting at. You've more patience than me.
Here's my attempt. The "quiz" in italics, bold highlights my guesses and normal type are random comments.
Question I
Between 40 and 50 per cent of Britain’s exports of goods go to other countries in the EU. Do you think that, following withdrawal, British exporters would be (a) better placed; (b) less well placed; (c) much the same?
Question II
Britain is one if the world’s biggest exporters of services and runs a substantial surplus on its service exports to other EU Member States. Do you think that, following withdrawal, its service exporters (law firms, universities, banks, insurance companies) would be (a) better placed; (b) less well placed; (c) much the same?
Of that list, possibly banks would be less well placed, but I'm not 100% on even that. Universities and law firms should be much the same.
Question III
As a country outside the European Union Britain’s relationship with the other countries of the EU would need to be put on a new basis. Do you think this should be similar to that of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (access to the Single Market, but acceptance of EU rules including freedom of movement and including also a substantial budget contribution)? Or should it be similar to that of Switzerland (access to the Single Market in goods – but not in services – acceptance of EU rules including freedom of movement and making a budget contribution)? Or none of the above (in which case your preference may take more than one page of A4 to set out)?
NB. my answer is what I think the relationship would be, not what it should be
Question IV
Britain outside the EU would have to establish its own tariff for goods imports in place of the EU’s Common External Tariff (CET). Do you think this new tariff should generally (a) be lower than the CET (in which case British producers would get less protection than at present); (b) be higher than the CET (in which case Britain would be required to compensate all other World Trade Organization members); or (c) be much the same?
Question V
Britain outside the EU will need new, national policies for agricultural support, for regional subsidies, and for scientific research and innovation. Do you think these policies should be (a) more generous; (b) less generous; (c) much the same as now?
Less generous for agriculture. A quick search suggests regional subsidies are being phased out in NW Scotland, and the only remaining areas are Wales and Cornwall. Possibly more generous for scientific research. I believe the CAP is by far the biggest of those three things, so less generous overall.
Question VI
Britain’s role in the world will be affected by withdrawal from Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and from the EU’s trade policies designed to gain better access to overseas markets and to promote freer trade. Do you think Britain’s influence, acting alone, will be (a) greater; (b) less or; (c) much the same?
Question VII
Britain’s net contribution to the EU’s budget is often cited as a major grievance. 2013 is the most recent year for which reliable figures are available. Do you think that Britain’s contribution in that year net of the Thatcher rebate, calculated per head of population, was (a) the largest of any MemberState; (b) the third largest or; (c) the ninth largest?
Loaded question, but I would guess that per capita contributions of Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany would be higher and this probably includes Norway and Liechtenstein.
Question VIII
Britain is outside the Schengen Agreement and can opt out of any EU measures on immigration from countries outside the EU. Do you think our external borders are controlled by (a) the EU; (b) the UK Government or; (c) no-one at all?
Question IX
It is possible that in the referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the EU but the overall outcome will be a decision to leave. In those circumstances do you think (a) this would be likely to trigger a demand for a new referendum on Scottish independence or; (b) not make much difference?
Question X
A decision by Britain to leave the EU would result in one part of the island of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland) remaining in the EU with a commitment to free movement of people, while the other part (Northern Ireland) would be outside. This could require the re-imposition of border controls on the movement of goods, services and people between the two parts of the island. Do you think this would (a) weaken, or (b) strengthen the Good Friday Agreement or (c) not much affect it?
It would cause enormous damage to the peace process in Northern Ireland if borders were closed again.
I hadn't seen the video of Patrick Minford but he highlights the point I made above that trade agreements are to protect the vested interests of corporates. That is not the same as protecting national interests which is how pro EU politicians like Major portray the position.
You can disagree with political decisions that might come from embracing Minford's view that protecting inefficient industries with import tariffs leads to a higher cost of living for the country's citizens. You cannot argue with the truth of the statement.
Given the difficulty Minford had in explaining to the select committee that tariffs were not intrinsically good for a nation, and did not protect national interests, only corporate interests, I don't give out much hope for our politicians to hold a balanced debate.
The preoccupation with losing trade agreements and the implication we can't sell our goods without one needs nailing once and for all. The only people who want additional charges on goods we import (that's what trade agreements mean) is the rest of the EU. They enjoy selling to us at higher rigged prices for their good and services to support inefficiency of production. So anything the rest of the EU says about staying or leaving should be heard with this firmly in mind.
If a country wants to prevent us selling goods or services to their people by imposing tariffs, because we are cheaper or better than their domestic goods and services we just sell to a country that doesn't have tariffs. If it is in our interests to have a tariff agreement with a country, even the EU, then we are free to do so. It will be on mutually agreed terms, not Switzerland's or Norway's or Iceland's.
There needs to be some way of every politician stating which vested interest he supports, the corporates who will be damaged by an exit, or the corporates who will be able to open up new markets using resources released by the industries and services that would suffer without an EU subsidy. Who will speak for the consumers who will enjoy a lower cost of living (8%?) if they didn't have to buy imported and EU goods at prices inflated by tariffs.
As far as I am concerned Cameron is on a fools errand, and it serves only to prove how disingenuous politicians can be and how far they are controlled by the interests of big business alarmed at the prospect of having to compete in the world market without a subsidy from tax payers.
The days of the EU should be numbered, it has served it's purpose as a protectionist block and a federal experiment.
The UK can stand on its own merits with what it produces and what the rest of the world want to buy at world prices. It certainly doesn't need to be burdened by a secondary layer of government in Brussels.
Common national interests, not global corporate interests should dictate our relations with other countries. Look at the trade agreement being negotiated between the US and the EU if you want evidence of what trade agreements are all about. Obama supports the UK remaining in the EU. He also speaks for the US corporates who want to be able to sue the UK government if we damage any US business under the trade agreement, but lose that right if we exit the EU.
I voted against in the original vote, and have yet to meet anyone who voted for. I have still not changed my mind and I am still of the opinion the vote was rigged, but how do you prove it?
All 9 of those points in both links are nullified by the fact that those who want out of the EU would like the UK to join on the same basis of countries in EFTA or Switzerland, which more or less enjoy all the benefits in both articles in some way but obviously lose the benefit of being at the decision making table. Which begs the question, what major decision has the UK been able to influence in recent history? Has there been anything worthwhile the UK has managed to stop or change in the face of opposition from Germany and France?
Which begs the question, what major decision has the UK been able to influence in recent history? Has there been anything worthwhile the UK has managed to stop or change in the face of opposition from Germany and France?
I have the same question, but flipped.
What major decision has been forced on the UK by the EU in recent history?
I asked this question before and got one answer - common fisheries in 1970 - which isn't recent history. The 30 minute video of Patrick Minnock provides another one - labour market policies (working time directive, probably maternity leave too), but on many of these UK policies are more worker-friendly than those of EU partners.
All 9 of those points in both links are nullified by the fact that those who want out of the EU would like the UK to join on the same basis of countries in EFTA or Switzerland, which more or less enjoy all the benefits in both articles in some way but obviously lose the benefit of being at the decision making table. Which begs the question, what major decision has the UK been able to influence in recent history? Has there been anything worthwhile the UK has managed to stop or change in the face of opposition from Germany and France?
None of the 9 points are in anyway nullified.
Being part of the EU the UK has managed to prevent changes to EU financial regulations which would severely threaten London's position as the primary financial centre in the EU. If we leave the EU and Frankfurt assumes that position it would represent a devastating blow to the EU economy. I think that is a pretty major decision that the UK has managed to influence.
All 9 of those points in both links are nullified by the fact that those who want out of the EU would like the UK to join on the same basis of countries in EFTA or Switzerland, which more or less enjoy all the benefits in both articles in some way but obviously lose the benefit of being at the decision making table. Which begs the question, what major decision has the UK been able to influence in recent history? Has there been anything worthwhile the UK has managed to stop or change in the face of opposition from Germany and France?
Comments
I don't know how you characterise a Europhile, but most I know are like John Major.They recognise there is a lot wrong with the EU but that the way you fix it is by taking part. Finding your allies (we have many, on many issues) and finding shared ground. That's how Europe works, always has done.
What you don't do is what Cameron has done with his ridiculous 4 year no benefit demand. He's instantly pissed off the Poles and others outside the eurozone who are not so keen on "ever closer union". WTF? If he had demanded a year he'd be home and dry already on that, not least because that's what most countries already do, more or less. I really thought Cameron was smarter than that
On balance, there are plenty of vocal Out supporters whose reasons for Out are complete rubbish though and cemented in deep-rooted nationalism and xenophobia.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg4VJPrNFeY
Where the hell did he get four years from? Bill Cash?
He spent the majority of the interview agreeing with the many faults of the EU, the fact that we can't really change much at all and then insisted we were better off remaining in.
All sounded a bit RD/KM/KF to me. Yes the Belgians are terrible there are so many problems, but we'd be even worse off without the Belgians.
His logic seemed to tie in with the RD supporter logic. It's shite, but it'll be even worse without the EU/RD.
Here's my attempt. The "quiz" in italics, bold highlights my guesses and normal type are random comments.
Question I
Between 40 and 50 per cent of Britain’s exports of goods go to other countries in the EU. Do you think that, following withdrawal, British exporters would be (a) better placed; (b) less well placed; (c) much the same?
Question II
Britain is one if the world’s biggest exporters of services and runs a substantial surplus on its service exports to other EU Member States. Do you think that, following withdrawal, its service exporters (law firms, universities, banks, insurance companies) would be (a) better placed; (b) less well placed; (c) much the same?
Of that list, possibly banks would be less well placed, but I'm not 100% on even that. Universities and law firms should be much the same.
Question III
As a country outside the European Union Britain’s relationship with the other countries of the EU would need to be put on a new basis. Do you think this should be similar to that of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (access to the Single Market, but acceptance of EU rules including freedom of movement and including also a substantial budget contribution)? Or should it be similar to that of Switzerland (access to the Single Market in goods – but not in services – acceptance of EU rules including freedom of movement and making a budget contribution)? Or none of the above (in which case your preference may take more than one page of A4 to set out)?
NB. my answer is what I think the relationship would be, not what it should be
Question IV
Britain outside the EU would have to establish its own tariff for goods imports in place of the EU’s Common External Tariff (CET). Do you think this new tariff should generally (a) be lower than the CET (in which case British producers would get less protection than at present); (b) be higher than the CET (in which case Britain would be required to compensate all other World Trade Organization members); or (c) be much the same?
Question V
Britain outside the EU will need new, national policies for agricultural support, for regional subsidies, and for scientific research and innovation. Do you think these policies should be (a) more generous; (b) less generous; (c) much the same as now?
Less generous for agriculture. A quick search suggests regional subsidies are being phased out in NW Scotland, and the only remaining areas are Wales and Cornwall. Possibly more generous for scientific research. I believe the CAP is by far the biggest of those three things, so less generous overall.
Question VI
Britain’s role in the world will be affected by withdrawal from Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and from the EU’s trade policies designed to gain better access to overseas markets and to promote freer trade. Do you think Britain’s influence, acting alone, will be (a) greater; (b) less or; (c) much the same?
Question VII
Britain’s net contribution to the EU’s budget is often cited as a major grievance. 2013 is the most recent year for which reliable figures are available. Do you think that Britain’s contribution in that year net of the Thatcher rebate, calculated per head of population, was (a) the largest of any MemberState; (b) the third largest or; (c) the ninth largest?
Loaded question, but I would guess that per capita contributions of Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany would be higher and this probably includes Norway and Liechtenstein.
Question VIII
Britain is outside the Schengen Agreement and can opt out of any EU measures on immigration from countries outside the EU. Do you think our external borders are controlled by (a) the EU; (b) the UK Government or; (c) no-one at all?
Question IX
It is possible that in the referendum Scotland will vote to remain in the EU but the overall outcome will be a decision to leave. In those circumstances do you think (a) this would be likely to trigger a demand for a new referendum on Scottish independence or; (b) not make much difference?
Question X
A decision by Britain to leave the EU would result in one part of the island of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland) remaining in the EU with a commitment to free movement of people, while the other part (Northern Ireland) would be outside. This could require the re-imposition of border controls on the movement of goods, services and people between the two parts of the island. Do you think this would (a) weaken, or (b) strengthen the Good Friday Agreement or (c) not much affect it?
It would cause enormous damage to the peace process in Northern Ireland if borders were closed again.
You can disagree with political decisions that might come from embracing Minford's view that protecting inefficient industries with import tariffs leads to a higher cost of living for the country's citizens. You cannot argue with the truth of the statement.
Given the difficulty Minford had in explaining to the select committee that tariffs were not intrinsically good for a nation, and did not protect national interests, only corporate interests, I don't give out much hope for our politicians to hold a balanced debate.
The preoccupation with losing trade agreements and the implication we can't sell our goods without one needs nailing once and for all. The only people who want additional charges on goods we import (that's what trade agreements mean) is the rest of the EU. They enjoy selling to us at higher rigged prices for their good and services to support inefficiency of production. So anything the rest of the EU says about staying or leaving should be heard with this firmly in mind.
If a country wants to prevent us selling goods or services to their people by imposing tariffs, because we are cheaper or better than their domestic goods and services we just sell to a country that doesn't have tariffs. If it is in our interests to have a tariff agreement with a country, even the EU, then we are free to do so. It will be on mutually agreed terms, not Switzerland's or Norway's or Iceland's.
There needs to be some way of every politician stating which vested interest he supports, the corporates who will be damaged by an exit, or the corporates who will be able to open up new markets using resources released by the industries and services that would suffer without an EU subsidy. Who will speak for the consumers who will enjoy a lower cost of living (8%?) if they didn't have to buy imported and EU goods at prices inflated by tariffs.
As far as I am concerned Cameron is on a fools errand, and it serves only to prove how disingenuous politicians can be and how far they are controlled by the interests of big business alarmed at the prospect of having to compete in the world market without a subsidy from tax payers.
The days of the EU should be numbered, it has served it's purpose as a protectionist block and a federal experiment.
The UK can stand on its own merits with what it produces and what the rest of the world want to buy at world prices. It certainly doesn't need to be burdened by a secondary layer of government in Brussels.
Common national interests, not global corporate interests should dictate our relations with other countries. Look at the trade agreement being negotiated between the US and the EU if you want evidence of what trade agreements are all about. Obama supports the UK remaining in the EU. He also speaks for the US corporates who want to be able to sue the UK government if we damage any US business under the trade agreement, but lose that right if we exit the EU.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/21/five-reasons-to-stay-in-the-eu-you-just-cant-argue-with-4719673/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/four-compelling-reasons-should-stay-4467845
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/07/what-will-happen-if-uk-leaves-eu-ten-ways-life-could-change.
What major decision has been forced on the UK by the EU in recent history?
I asked this question before and got one answer - common fisheries in 1970 - which isn't recent history. The 30 minute video of Patrick Minnock provides another one - labour market policies (working time directive, probably maternity leave too), but on many of these UK policies are more worker-friendly than those of EU partners.
Being part of the EU the UK has managed to prevent changes to EU financial regulations which would severely threaten London's position as the primary financial centre in the EU. If we leave the EU and Frankfurt assumes that position it would represent a devastating blow to the EU economy. I think that is a pretty major decision that the UK has managed to influence.