Regardless of whether staying or leaving is better in the short term do the yes voters feel comfortable becoming part of a European superstate? Even if becoming part of a huge block is the only course for the future why is the EU the best option?
I might be wrong, but I believe geography may have something to do with it!
Tell that to Hawaii Bob.
In all seriousness though I can see obvious downsides to tying ourselves to a fractious, militarily week and resource poor continent which has existential threats on its borders. If we absolutely have to lose our independence I'm far from convinced the EU is the smart play.
Or perhaps a better example would be The Falklands!!
I take your point but I'm not convinced we are in danger of losing our independence by staying in a reformed EU. And I'm sure France, Italy, Germany et al feel the same way.
I was in Italy recently and saw a lot of Italian flags – more than you see Union Jacks. I also saw a lesser, but still significant number of European flags. You don’t see many in this country at all.
Regardless of whether staying or leaving is better in the short term do the yes voters feel comfortable becoming part of a European superstate? Even if becoming part of a huge block is the only course for the future why is the EU the best option?
I might be wrong, but I believe geography may have something to do with it!
Tell that to Hawaii Bob.
In all seriousness though I can see obvious downsides to tying ourselves to a fractious, militarily week and resource poor continent which has existential threats on its borders. If we absolutely have to lose our independence I'm far from convinced the EU is the smart play.
Or perhaps a better example would be The Falklands!!
I take your point but I'm not convinced we are in danger of losing our independence by staying in a reformed EU. And I'm sure France, Italy, Germany et al feel the same way.
A 'reformed EU' is still only heading in one direction though. For me the referendum vote isn't about whatever concessions Cameron brings home or even what the Union will look like a decade from now. If the world is really going to be divided into competing blocks it would be wise to join one of the winners and nothing I see of the EU makes me think 'winner'.
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
I suspect the powers that be have been grappling with that question for decades which is why we've kept very much to the outside of the EU. In the real world our only realistic option would be to throw our lot in with the Americans. I'm sure there's no appetite for that at the moment but sentiment could change rapidly if the EU's Eastern borders heat up in the near future.
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
The Commonwealth is ready made for the UK as one suggestion.
Anyway as I've said before the EU is a political construct not economic it is perfectly possible to be members of the European Economic Area (EEA) without being members of the EU.
We are already part of the commonwealth. If we wanted to strengthen trading tides there is nothing to stop us doing so. And we could still maintain the benefits of staying in Europe. Like Farage says, to make up for any trade shortfalls, we can increase trade with Asia. Absolutely nothing stopping us doing that now!!!
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
The Commonwealth ?
The Commonwealth would be very weak politically, economically and militarily . It's natural resources are however phenomenal.
We are still members of NATO which gets overlooked in amongst the EU froth and politically we would be negotiating for ourselves rather than having an effective input of 1/28.
I am not suggesting a Commonwealth superstate which is where the acquis communautare (ever closer union) of the EU will take us.
Let's speak for ourselves and reassert the right to hire and fire our rulers.
We are already part of the commonwealth. If we wanted to strengthen trading tides there is nothing to stop us doing so. And we could still maintain the benefits of staying in Europe. Like Farage says, to make up for any trade shortfalls, we can increase trade with Asia. Absolutely nothing stopping us doing that now!!!
Actually there is plenty stopping us from strengthening trading ties with the commonwealth. No EU member is permitted to negotiate their own separate trade agreements. Tate & Lyle are getting screwed by trade quotas and tariffs on commonwealth produced sugar cane, which are intended to protect EU sugar beet producers
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
I suspect the powers that be have been grappling with that question for decades which is why we've kept very much to the outside of the EU. In the real world our only realistic option would be to throw our lot in with the Americans. I'm sure there's no appetite for that at the moment but sentiment could change rapidly if the EU's Eastern borders heat up in the near future.
I don't want to twist your argument into anything that it's not - I know you're not suggesting that the UK should join a superstate in the near future - but would "throwing our lot in with the Americans" mean the UK applying to become another State? On a par with California or Texas or New York. Or another arrangement?
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
I suspect the powers that be have been grappling with that question for decades which is why we've kept very much to the outside of the EU. In the real world our only realistic option would be to throw our lot in with the Americans. I'm sure there's no appetite for that at the moment but sentiment could change rapidly if the EU's Eastern borders heat up in the near future.
I don't want to twist your argument into anything that it's not - I know you're not suggesting that the UK should join a superstate in the near future - but would "throwing our lot in with the Americans" mean the UK applying to become another State? On a par with California or Texas or New York. Or another arrangement?
My point is that if we vote yes in the referendum we're eventually going to become the equivalent of an American state within a federal European Union. One of the big arguments I've heard as to why this is desirable is that in the future the UK won't be able to compete in a world of large powerful blocs. If the logic of this argument is correct and we really have no choice of going it alone we should look to side with the most powerful/advantageous state or bloc that we can. To my eyes the EU doesn't convince me as being a sound long term bet but the US might.
But people are assuming that trade is equal within the EU. What it does is give the advantage of trading as a big block and much easier with each other – but it doesn’t preclude Germany effectively trading with the rest of the world and it wouldn’t preclude us if we were as good as them at it!
What would be an example of a 'winner' block and how would the UK join it?
I suspect the powers that be have been grappling with that question for decades which is why we've kept very much to the outside of the EU. In the real world our only realistic option would be to throw our lot in with the Americans. I'm sure there's no appetite for that at the moment but sentiment could change rapidly if the EU's Eastern borders heat up in the near future.
I don't want to twist your argument into anything that it's not - I know you're not suggesting that the UK should join a superstate in the near future - but would "throwing our lot in with the Americans" mean the UK applying to become another State? On a par with California or Texas or New York. Or another arrangement?
My point is that if we vote yes in the referendum we're eventually going to become the equivalent of an American state within a federal European Union. One of the big arguments I've heard as to why this is desirable is that in the future the UK won't be able to compete in a world of large powerful blocs. If the logic of this argument is correct and we really have no choice of going it alone we should look to side with the most powerful/advantageous state or bloc that we can. To my eyes the EU doesn't convince me as being a sound long term bet but the US might.
I understand your point and I'm not going to argue you on it. I'd just like to understand what exactly "throwing our lot in with the Americans" would mean if that happened. Would it mean becoming a State?
If that was the most advantageous option then yes. I can see more benefits being a large US state on the doorstep of Europe than being a large European state in a weak federal European Union.
I've just listened to an interesting piece on the World Tonight on Radio 4 on fish stocks. Admittedly cod, not bass. However it paints a picture of the results of EU intervention which is very different to the one you have described. I'd be interested in your take on it.
The EU Commissioners and Norway got together in 1997 to agree the quotas and restrictions for North Sea cod. The overfishing was acknowledged at the time as being the result of a greater number of fishing boats and industrial trawling. This in turn was the result of opening up the North Sea to more nations as a result of Britain entering the EU and opening up British territorial waters to Spain and France in particular.
The EU did not originally set quotas based on sustainability as now happens, an overall "take" was established and then each country allocated a share of the "take" as a quota. The fishermen of the EU countries were therefore competing with each other for quotas. Quotas were increased to meet national demands which meant the "take" had to be increased and more overfishing.
Commercial fisherman of all nations, with British fishermen being as bad as any, exceeded quotas by landing illegal catches. As catches fell they took smaller and smaller fish. Britain wanted quotas reduced but could do nothing unilaterally, it had to wait until Norway persuaded the EU to sit down and agree restrictions.
So it was Norway, not the EU which was responsible for the initiative to save the North Sea cod. It was overfishing by EU nations, including Britain, which caused the crisis in the first place.
The good news is that stocks are about to be certified as sustainable. We can attribute this success to the EU sitting down with Norway in 1997 and applying agreed restrictions, that is far from saying the EU saved the North Sea from a crisis they allowed to happen. My argument is that Britain, in control, would not have faced the same crisis caused by entry into the EU and loss of control over fish stocks.
Thankfully the new generation of British fishermen seem to have realised that sustainability and protecting the environment is their responsibility. I would like to hear the same noises from fisherman of other EU nations.
The fishermen acknowledged in the interview that they need regulating. I think you might also be suggesting that this is support for being regulated by the EU rather than, I suggest, simply acknowledging that the EU is de facto the entity which holds the power to apply regulations.
OK thanks. Fair enough. It's an interesting take on it. Different to most "anti EU" arguments.
IA I haven't read many of the posts on here so I don't know your views. Do you see our future in the EU and if you do what sort of Union do you envisage?
Thank you for an interesting and instructive post. I might simply suggest this; while I'll assume you are right that the Norwegians led the way on this, rather than the EU, I would also assume that (only) the EU were able to deliver the co-operation of French and Spanish fishermen. Without an EU I expect the free for all would continue, led by those buggers. I'm old enough to remember the "wine wars" when the French blew up an Italian boat loaded with Italian wine outside Sete. The EU has over time calmed the nationalist tendencies of its member States on various fronts like that, so that younger people assume more reasonable behaviour is the norm. In my lifetime it wasn't the norm.
Thank you for an interesting and instructive post. I might simply suggest this; while I'll assume you are right that the Norwegians led the way on this, rather than the EU, I would also assume that (only) the EU were able to deliver the co-operation of French and Spanish fishermen. Without an EU I expect the free for all would continue, led by those buggers. I'm old enough to remember the "wine wars" when the French blew up an Italian boat loaded with Italian wine outside Sete. The EU has over time calmed the nationalist tendencies of its member States on various fronts like that, so that younger people assume more reasonable behaviour is the norm. In my lifetime it wasn't the norm.
If we weren't in the EU the French and Spanish wouldn't be allowed in except on our terms. No need for the EU, we send in the gunboats and blow the buggers out of the water. No pussy footing about asking for co-operation
Thank you for an interesting and instructive post. I might simply suggest this; while I'll assume you are right that the Norwegians led the way on this, rather than the EU, I would also assume that (only) the EU were able to deliver the co-operation of French and Spanish fishermen. Without an EU I expect the free for all would continue, led by those buggers. I'm old enough to remember the "wine wars" when the French blew up an Italian boat loaded with Italian wine outside Sete. The EU has over time calmed the nationalist tendencies of its member States on various fronts like that, so that younger people assume more reasonable behaviour is the norm. In my lifetime it wasn't the norm.
If we weren't in the EU the French and Spanish wouldn't be allowed in except on our terms. No need for the EU, we send in the gunboats and blow the buggers out of the water. No pussy footing about asking for co-operation
So you agree we should stay in the EU in order to avoid military conflict with any of its members?
If we weren't in the EU the French and Spanish wouldn't be allowed in except on our terms. No need for the EU, we send in the gunboats and blow the buggers out of the water. No pussy footing about asking for co-operation
So you agree we should stay in the EU in order to avoid military conflict with any of its members?
OK thanks. Fair enough. It's an interesting take on it. Different to most "anti EU" arguments.
IA I haven't read many of the posts on here so I don't know your views. Do you see our future in the EU and if you do what sort of Union do you envisage?
At the moment, yes I see the future for the UK being in the EU. The EU is better than no EU and it's better being on the inside pissing out. While I understand the focus of many people (not you) on intangibles like sovereignty, my opinion is that it's what you do with it that counts. I've asked twice on this thread for recent examples of bad things the EU has done to the UK, and, other than the decades-old fishing policy that Dippenhall is understandably concerned with, I've not got any answers for anything since the passage of the Lisbon or Nice treaties. That says to me that the UK is no worse off in the EU. I also asked for examples of negative things that would happen if Britain voted to stay in, but no response to that one.
Norway has full control over its own fishing policy, but, in order to maintain its access to the single market, needs to implement EU regulations, which cover 75% of new laws. It also contributes to the EU budget, but has no control over either.
Leaving the EU would also remove the UK from the TTIP, in the hope that it turns out to be so successful that the USA decides to offer better terms to the UK, and I don't understand why the US would do that (this issue is a concern for Norway right now). Depending on global WTO agreements will get nowhere fast. Going back to some sort of splendid isolation is an option, but it doesn't seem a wise one. In my opinion, the EU is the best show available right now. If it starts doing things against the wishes of British people then my mind might change, but right now I think it's best to stay in. I don't think the world is yet at the point you discuss where everyone has to join a powerful block, but I don't think the country should leave one it's in.
Political harmonisation, if inevitable, would be focused on the Eurozone for at least the next decade. Denmark and Sweden would be as hostile to this as the UK would. The government should be looking to build allies within the union (the above two, plus Finland and Holland would be likely allies - possibly Poland) to protect the people's interests and try to guide the direction of the union.
OK thanks. Fair enough. It's an interesting take on it. Different to most "anti EU" arguments.
IA I haven't read many of the posts on here so I don't know your views. Do you see our future in the EU and if you do what sort of Union do you envisage?
At the moment, yes I see the future for the UK being in the EU. The EU is better than no EU and it's better being on the inside pissing out. While I understand the focus of many people (not you) on intangibles like sovereignty, my opinion is that it's what you do with it that counts. I've asked twice on this thread for recent examples of bad things the EU has done to the UK, and, other than the decades-old fishing policy that Dippenhall is understandably concerned with, I've not got any answers for anything since the passage of the Lisbon or Nice treaties. That says to me that the UK is no worse off in the EU. I also asked for examples of negative things that would happen if Britain voted to stay in, but no response to that one.
Norway has full control over its own fishing policy, but, in order to maintain its access to the single market, needs to implement EU regulations, which cover 75% of new laws. It also contributes to the EU budget, but has no control over either.
Leaving the EU would also remove the UK from the TTIP, in the hope that it turns out to be so successful that the USA decides to offer better terms to the UK, and I don't understand why the US would do that (this issue is a concern for Norway right now). Depending on global WTO agreements will get nowhere fast. Going back to some sort of splendid isolation is an option, but it doesn't seem a wise one. In my opinion, the EU is the best show available right now. If it starts doing things against the wishes of British people then my mind might change, but right now I think it's best to stay in. I don't think the world is yet at the point you discuss where everyone has to join a powerful block, but I don't think the country should leave one it's in.
Political harmonisation, if inevitable, would be focused on the Eurozone for at least the next decade. Denmark and Sweden would be as hostile to this as the UK would. The government should be looking to build allies within the union (the above two, plus Finland and Holland would be likely allies - possibly Poland) to protect the people's interests and try to guide the direction of the union.
Thanks for replying, I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to you before now. I think you make some reasonable points about changing the organisation from the inside with like minded countries but I still wonder how effective any British led grouping would be given the geographical splits within the Union.
I don't however believe that your characterisation of EU opponents as being 'splendid isolationists' is really true. Surely everyone realises that the future of this country relies upon it engaging politically and economically with the rest of the world, the question is whether the EU is the most effective mechanism for doing so?
I think we'll see the EU put under enormous pressure in the coming years and I think it's members will demonstrate that the notion of solidarity is trumped by national self interest. If the end game is as I fear we should keep a healthy distance between us and the 'project'.
I say Burnt Ash should get out of Lee, Lee should get out of Lewisham, Lewisham should get out of London, London should get out of England, England should get out of Britain,, and Britain should get out of Europe. Sick of those freeloaders down from Blackheath using our roads and benefitting from our street lights, and wandering brazenly in Northbrook Park, bastards.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Comments
I take your point but I'm not convinced we are in danger of losing our independence by staying in a reformed EU. And I'm sure France, Italy, Germany et al feel the same way.
BTW I see that Old Glory is having a mild update....
Anyway as I've said before the EU is a political construct not economic it is perfectly possible to be members of the European Economic Area (EEA) without being members of the EU.
I am not suggesting a Commonwealth superstate which is where the acquis communautare (ever closer union) of the EU will take us.
Let's speak for ourselves and reassert the right to hire and fire our rulers.
The EU did not originally set quotas based on sustainability as now happens, an overall "take" was established and then each country allocated a share of the "take" as a quota. The fishermen of the EU countries were therefore competing with each other for quotas. Quotas were increased to meet national demands which meant the "take" had to be increased and more overfishing.
Commercial fisherman of all nations, with British fishermen being as bad as any, exceeded quotas by landing illegal catches. As catches fell they took smaller and smaller fish. Britain wanted quotas reduced but could do nothing unilaterally, it had to wait until Norway persuaded the EU to sit down and agree restrictions.
So it was Norway, not the EU which was responsible for the initiative to save the North Sea cod. It was overfishing by EU nations, including Britain, which caused the crisis in the first place.
The good news is that stocks are about to be certified as sustainable. We can attribute this success to the EU sitting down with Norway in 1997 and applying agreed restrictions, that is far from saying the EU saved the North Sea from a crisis they allowed to happen. My argument is that Britain, in control, would not have faced the same crisis caused by entry into the EU and loss of control over fish stocks.
Thankfully the new generation of British fishermen seem to have realised that sustainability and protecting the environment is their responsibility. I would like to hear the same noises from fisherman of other EU nations.
The fishermen acknowledged in the interview that they need regulating. I think you might also be suggesting that this is support for being regulated by the EU rather than, I suggest, simply acknowledging that the EU is de facto the entity which holds the power to apply regulations.
Thank you for an interesting and instructive post. I might simply suggest this; while I'll assume you are right that the Norwegians led the way on this, rather than the EU, I would also assume that (only) the EU were able to deliver the co-operation of French and Spanish fishermen. Without an EU I expect the free for all would continue, led by those buggers. I'm old enough to remember the "wine wars" when the French blew up an Italian boat loaded with Italian wine outside Sete. The EU has over time calmed the nationalist tendencies of its member States on various fronts like that, so that younger people assume more reasonable behaviour is the norm. In my lifetime it wasn't the norm.
Norway has full control over its own fishing policy, but, in order to maintain its access to the single market, needs to implement EU regulations, which cover 75% of new laws. It also contributes to the EU budget, but has no control over either.
Leaving the EU would also remove the UK from the TTIP, in the hope that it turns out to be so successful that the USA decides to offer better terms to the UK, and I don't understand why the US would do that (this issue is a concern for Norway right now). Depending on global WTO agreements will get nowhere fast. Going back to some sort of splendid isolation is an option, but it doesn't seem a wise one. In my opinion, the EU is the best show available right now. If it starts doing things against the wishes of British people then my mind might change, but right now I think it's best to stay in. I don't think the world is yet at the point you discuss where everyone has to join a powerful block, but I don't think the country should leave one it's in.
Political harmonisation, if inevitable, would be focused on the Eurozone for at least the next decade. Denmark and Sweden would be as hostile to this as the UK would. The government should be looking to build allies within the union (the above two, plus Finland and Holland would be likely allies - possibly Poland) to protect the people's interests and try to guide the direction of the union.
I don't however believe that your characterisation of EU opponents as being 'splendid isolationists' is really true. Surely everyone realises that the future of this country relies upon it engaging politically and economically with the rest of the world, the question is whether the EU is the most effective mechanism for doing so?
I think we'll see the EU put under enormous pressure in the coming years and I think it's members will demonstrate that the notion of solidarity is trumped by national self interest. If the end game is as I fear we should keep a healthy distance between us and the 'project'.
Sick of those freeloaders down from Blackheath using our roads and benefitting from our street lights, and wandering brazenly in Northbrook Park, bastards.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.