Special offer for all the people who want to stay in Europe, I have a special deal for you. Exclusive membership to my club £55.00 a day. Our specially selected unelected committee will take over the daily running of your life. For this small fee; we can control what you eat, who you employ, who you can do deals with, who stays in your house and who you can throw out of your house. We don’t even waste a penny on having our accounts audited, you can trust us. So join today.
Out of interest, where did you get the £55 per day figure from? This seems to make your club distinctly expensive and somewhat uncompetitive. I think it is doomed to failure!
By contrast those nice people in the EU, by my back of the envelope calculation, based upon a (admittedly moving target of the EU contribution) figure of £6.7bn NET for the 26.47mn households in the UK gives a figure of £0.67 per day.
To put that into context, Northern Ireland, an area with the approx. population of Essex, costs the rest of us around £11bn a year. That means the residents of Great Britain pay about £1.17 per household per day to subsidise the residents of Northern Ireland to the tune of £6,075 per person, per year. Or about £15,700 per household to put it another way.
So, NI costs us about twice the amount the EU does. I know which gives better value and which one I'd want to keep given the option.
Worth every penny, I'll have you know.
Actually, it's probably us that provide the inspiration for Uncle Roly's footballing "investment" strategy.
So sit back, relax and wallow in that warm glow....
NornIrishAddick, with all due respect I have seen all that but I am still unconvinced that, due to the lack of a unified framework for a state leaving the EU, and legally speaking the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right. It has to join because it was in the EU but the EEA is a separate entity. It is likely that the UK would need to seek entry into EFTA or negotiate a deal like Switzerland but there does not seem to be any legal mechanism that explicitly forces the UK to leave the EEA.
It's clear, from my perspective, in the wording that the current UK membership is because it is part of the, now, EU. The treaty has a single EU membership, not 28 individual EU states being members. If it was not the case, the presidency of the EEA would be stated to rotate through all the member states, rather than alternating between EU and named EFTA countries.
I grant that none of those drafting the treaty assumed that anyone would seek to move out of the EU. However, given the length of time taken to negotiate, and the fact that the EEA commission only has representation from the EU as a single bloc, and the three EFTA countries as individuals, I do not see an existing mechanism whereby the UK can simply remain in the EEA, without having to join EFTA and apply all over again.
The thing about the EEA is that the main benefit it provided was access to the EU single market. There is no rational reason to assume that the rules will be changed to allow the UK be a member of the EEA without following its rules. Like the EU, it's a club, to rules have been set out and, while it would be nice to think negotiations could run smoothly, treaty changes to amend these rules would take many more than the two years between an out vote and the UK exiting the EU.
how can anyone vote for an IRA loving socialist twat is beyond me---they need burning
Not sure that that's really allowed, especially not in a smokeless zone....
But, as for the question, I imagine it's (mostly) a case of going into the polling booth, having established your bona fides. There you mark your preference with an "X" or, in more enlightened societies in numerical order.
I hope this helps, and please, never ever let "The Man" get you down to the extent that you think things are beyond you.....
NornIrishAddick, again, you are mistaken in believing that the EU member states constitute a single membership of the EEA - all the members are signatories in their owns right. Hence Croatia, currently only provisionally in the EEA, until such a time all individual member states, as opposed to the EU representing all its members, ratify Croatia's entry.
I see David lost to Jeremy today in PMQ's, and diminished himself in the process.
I was thinking 'whaaaat? Cameron you, you see you next Tuesday'.
Corbyn was banging on about the health service, and Cameron yells to Corbyn that his (Cameron's) mother would be telling Jeremy off about his dress sense.
'proper suit'.
Proper?
It was nothing to do with what Corbyn was talking about, but scratched the surface of the mindset of these privileged rulers.
File under:
'Is he one of us?' 'Plebs' 'Proper suit'
Cameron you might think you're wearing a proper suit, but clothes don't buy you class, you have to earn it.
He spoke like a dickhead today.
Just heard that on the drive home. A real wtf moment given just how important it is for our politicians to be seen as credible at the moment. It was a clearly prepared statement shouted in response to a comment that wasn't even from Corbyn ffs.
It might have gone down well with his back benchers who laughed so hard I suspect a few lost bladder control but when the PM starts cracking "your mother..." crap it just makes him look like a fecking Bullingdon Bully rather than the most important politician in the country. As you say totally classless, as I think Corbyn's response highlighted.
NornIrishAddick, again, you are mistaken in believing that the EU member states constitute a single membership of the EEA - all the members are signatories in their owns right. Hence Croatia, currently only provisionally in the EEA, until such a time all individual member states, as opposed to the EU representing all its members, ratify Croatia's entry.
I think if you look at the wording of the treaty it is clear that the EU is a single entity, and all new entrants to the EU are obliged to join the EEA. Croatia has membership as part of the accession treaty to the EU, as the UK parliamentary research paper I'd mentioned previously, makes clear.
I have looked at the wording of the treaty as well as other sources and I disagree. Nothing you have quoted so far conclusively suggests that the EU signed the UK up on its behalf. Your previous assertion that the treaty has a single EU membership is factually incorrect from what I have seen/read.
Oh, just found something else. The EEA treaty was signed by the UK a year before the EU even existed. At the time, the U.K. was part of the EEC.
I have looked at the wording of the treaty as well as other sources and I disagree. Nothing you have quoted so far conclusively suggests that the EU signed the UK up on its behalf. Your previous assertion that the treaty has a single EU membership is factually incorrect from what I have seen/read.
Oh, just found something else. The EEA treaty was signed by the UK a year before the EU even existed. At the time, the U.K. was part of the EEC.
Correct, it was signed by member states of the EEC; but the EEC was then replaced, through the Treaty of the European Union, becoming the EU.
Article 1
(ex Article 1 TEU) [2]
By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called "the Union", on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Treaties"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.
It is not possible to become a party to the EEA Agreement without being a member of either the EU or EFTA, so the UK would have to rejoin EFTA if it left the EU in order to remain in the EEA. There has also been a suggestion that Article 127 of the EEA Agreement might allow continued free trade and movement between a withdrawing state and the EEA for 12 months after a Member State signals its withdrawal.
Equally, the EFTA website makes clear that the agreement is between individual members of EFTA and the EU.
All member states sign EU treaties, and internal treaties (Maastricht/Lisbon) are signed between the nation states; external treaties however are between the European Union and third parties (even where the member states sign as members of the EU). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 206, 207 and 218, provides some information. The whole Treaty is a thrilling read, and can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&rid=1
However, if the EU/EC member countries had signed up to the EEA in any capacity other than solely as member countries, I doubt that they would have been listed, as they were under The European Community. The UK was a contracting party to the agreement in its capacity as an EU/EC member, had it been otherwise, the UK would have been listed in the same way as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (which were not listed under EFTA)
In my view, the wording of the EEA Agreement clearly refers to the UK's membership of the EEA being because of membership of the EU/EC.
It's fair enough that you don't agree with me; and I am sure that there are more than enough lawyers willing to wade in (for a suitable fee). I am certain that an agreement will be reached, regarding the EEA, should the UK vote to leave the EU; but the evidence that I sort of believe (because it is not associated with any one side in the campaigning) says that the UK will have to negotiate to remain within the EEA (first having joined EFTA).
As much as a lot of that is true, claiming the EU is responsible for 70 years is peace is rather foolish considering the EU didn't even exist 30 years ago.
As much as a lot of that is true, claiming the EU is responsible for 70 years is peace is rather foolish considering the EU didn't even exist 30 years ago.
I am interested to hear your views on my comment about the situation the UK will find itself in - being similar to that of Norway - when (as you assert) we are in the EEA but not the EU?
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe. Both sides of the argument have valid points.
This is absolutely right.
It will be the amount of weight people attach to the valid points on all sides which will influence their vote.
For me for example concerns about ever closer union are way down the list.
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
They don't rely on peristalsis?
Mind = blown
Of course they do. Esophageal peristalsis is used by birds but it works in conjunction with gravity. As such, birds could never be taken in to space for this very reason
Comments
Actually, it's probably us that provide the inspiration for Uncle Roly's footballing "investment" strategy.
So sit back, relax and wallow in that warm glow....
I grant that none of those drafting the treaty assumed that anyone would seek to move out of the EU. However, given the length of time taken to negotiate, and the fact that the EEA commission only has representation from the EU as a single bloc, and the three EFTA countries as individuals, I do not see an existing mechanism whereby the UK can simply remain in the EEA, without having to join EFTA and apply all over again.
The thing about the EEA is that the main benefit it provided was access to the EU single market. There is no rational reason to assume that the rules will be changed to allow the UK be a member of the EEA without following its rules. Like the EU, it's a club, to rules have been set out and, while it would be nice to think negotiations could run smoothly, treaty changes to amend these rules would take many more than the two years between an out vote and the UK exiting the EU.
But, as for the question, I imagine it's (mostly) a case of going into the polling booth, having established your bona fides. There you mark your preference with an "X" or, in more enlightened societies in numerical order.
I hope this helps, and please, never ever let "The Man" get you down to the extent that you think things are beyond you.....
http://www.anothereurope.org/founding-statement/
(Lights blue touchpaper.......)
It might have gone down well with his back benchers who laughed so hard I suspect a few lost bladder control but when the PM starts cracking "your mother..." crap it just makes him look like a fecking Bullingdon Bully rather than the most important politician in the country. As you say totally classless, as I think Corbyn's response highlighted.
Oh, just found something else. The EEA treaty was signed by the UK a year before the EU even existed. At the time, the U.K. was part of the EEC.
Article 1
(ex Article 1 TEU) [2]
By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called "the Union", on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Treaties"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.
Regarding the possibility of the UK continuing within the EEA, as it does now, because it is a member of the EU, I would still refer to the briefing paper presented to Members of {Parliament, admittedly in 2013: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP13-42/RP13-42.pdf
On page 19 there is the following statement.
It is not possible to become a party to the EEA Agreement without being a member of either the EU or EFTA, so the UK would have to rejoin EFTA if it left the EU in order to remain in the EEA. There has also been a suggestion that Article 127 of the EEA Agreement might allow continued free trade and movement between a withdrawing state and the EEA for 12 months after a Member State signals its withdrawal.
Equally, the EFTA website makes clear that the agreement is between individual members of EFTA and the EU.
All member states sign EU treaties, and internal treaties (Maastricht/Lisbon) are signed between the nation states; external treaties however are between the European Union and third parties (even where the member states sign as members of the EU). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 206, 207 and 218, provides some information. The whole Treaty is a thrilling read, and can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&rid=1
However, if the EU/EC member countries had signed up to the EEA in any capacity other than solely as member countries, I doubt that they would have been listed, as they were under The European Community. The UK was a contracting party to the agreement in its capacity as an EU/EC member, had it been otherwise, the UK would have been listed in the same way as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (which were not listed under EFTA)
In my view, the wording of the EEA Agreement clearly refers to the UK's membership of the EEA being because of membership of the EU/EC.
It's fair enough that you don't agree with me; and I am sure that there are more than enough lawyers willing to wade in (for a suitable fee). I am certain that an agreement will be reached, regarding the EEA, should the UK vote to leave the EU; but the evidence that I sort of believe (because it is not associated with any one side in the campaigning) says that the UK will have to negotiate to remain within the EEA (first having joined EFTA).
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend.
Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
It will be the amount of weight people attach to the valid points on all sides which will influence their vote.
For me for example concerns about ever closer union are way down the list.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
Mind = blown