Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)

[Insanties_birth]

@datalol, I'd suggest a lot of that does the really seem all that scathing to be honest.Trade taking longer to negotiate is certainly the most apparent and obvious delay but I don't trust Obamas bogey men, even with he knowledge of how ttip was practically designed to screw Europe over, our special relationship (I know it's not really that special but it's better than nothing) and the idea that America actually has a queue all seems to add to a bit of propaganda to push us to try and stay with ttip.

The problem being they clearly wanted us in to influence the eu, Cameron has shown no spine and said he would not resist the issues with the NHS so suggests he's just a leashed US puppy that they wanted to help move ttip forward. We will probably get more remain camp bluster about how ttip isn't bad and that we are better in the eu but it looks safer to have a white wash and get rid of cameron and the EU for failing to restrict such harmful policy. Some of your points though show an extension in the talks to the eu are possible but try and portray it as if it might not go ahead. No country would want to be 2 years into negotiating and want to drop the ball and have the other side want to move elsewhere. Especially not if we're to believe the EU never does any wrong as some suggest as well.

Trade does look like it could take a while but to be honest I believe the US is bluffing. They mainly said what they said as ttip hadn't been leaked at that point and they wanted it to go ahead which is increasingly unlikely due to the harmful nature coming out. It's a gamble still but our trade with the eu will stay in place in the mean time anyway (which we are always reminded is our biggest trading partner) due to the divorce period so there isn't that much to lose. Maybe I've missed one point but what are all these big issues we will have outside of trade that Boris needs to work on?

 

[Insanties_birth]

FT.com - Germany to push for progress towards European army

A "dangerous fantasy" according to some in the remain camp....

Oh but don't you know, the financial times is a plebiscite tabloid with an agenda (as if all papers have some magic agenda to impoverish britain as that is all they can foresee with that decision yet assume people would want that ) . You also forget that as an out voter you are a vile cretin and your points are stupid and negligible before the eu. Your clear mile high tin foil hat has buried you in silliness as the glorious eu only has wealth and enrichment programs on there mind.

Turkey will never join in a million years, all immigrants are good, especially the criminal ones, trade agreements are bad like Norway and others, dead men walking those nations are. How can we stand to listen to more crazed out view perspectives when all they offer is conjecture and our minds envision no possible negatives of the glorious and sexy juncker. /S

Just joking but seriously, between ttip, eu army and turkey there doesn't seem to be much progression in the EU that we can look forward to lately.

 

[Mr Jack]

Ignoring the fact they have already agreed free trade agreements with other states and in the process of more, I never mentioned free-movement which is a tiny, tiny part of EU membership.

None of the non-EU trade agreements offer the same access to EU markets as we currently enjoy. All of the countries that get the same access as we have have agreed to freedom of movement; every indication is that we will not get this access without agreeing to freedom of movement.

Why can't we have an EEC with free movement for the UK?

I do not know what you want this thing you're calling the "EEC" to be? It's trivially obvious that we can't get the old EEC back (we'd need to dissolve the entire EU to do that) so what is that you want in your "EEC" and how, exactly, does it differ from a "Norway option" or the current EU?

 

[delta0]

None of the non-EU trade agreements offer the same access to EU markets as we currently enjoy. All of the countries that get the same access as we have have agreed to freedom of movement; every indication is that we will not get this access without agreeing to freedom of movement.



I do not know what you want this thing you're calling the "EEC" to be? It's trivially obvious that we can't get the old EEC back (we'd need to dissolve the entire EU to do that) so what is that you want in your "EEC" and how, exactly, does it differ from a "Norway option" or the current EU?

Freedom of movement with the option to apply an emergency brake is available to non-EU countries and have free trade without tariffs. That is one of the many differences that the EEA offers over the EU.

"It is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area. Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less potential influence than Britain, continues to use clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict the movement of persons. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are further reinforced by Protocol 15 (Article 5 – 7) of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people. These have been kept in place by what is known as the EEA Council."

This option is available to all EEA countries.

 

[Adnams Drinker]

Still 100% Brexit - and if it happens, I hope it sounds the death knell for David Cameron's term as PM, the TTIP deal and the whole rotten EU construct.

FT.com - Germany to push for progress towards European army

A "dangerous fantasy" according to some in the remain camp....

Indeed - has that EU-apologist Clegg since admitted he was lying when he denied the plans for this?

 

[datalol-jack]

A few more thoughts I have for now. Still not finished with the TTIP leaks.

@datalol, I'd suggest a lot of that does the really seem all that scathing to be honest.Trade taking longer to negotiate is certainly the most apparent and obvious delay but I don't trust Obamas bogey men, even with he knowledge of how ttip was practically designed to screw Europe over, our special relationship (I know it's not really that special but it's better than nothing) and the idea that America actually has a queue all seems to add to a bit of propaganda to push us to try and stay with ttip.

Knowing what we know now, a change of president adds further uncertainty re foreign and trade policy, which regrettably would fall right at the moment of our pivoting away from Europe. By the time we are more or less through, they would've had another election. Further uncertainty. People in their government machinery also tend to swap between administrations, unlike the top civil servants here.

The popular current in the US, as here, personified by Trump and Sanders, is exerting pressure to move against free trade as policy and to more protectionism from competition, be it labour or goods. This popular current jars with both BoJo's stated globalist trade intentions, and affects market confidence. Obama's intervention had an element of cautioning against this: we might have other priorities; do not expect a trade focus off the bat.

A TTIP collapse would be considered a further setback, and looking at an average length and intervals between USA's FTAs isn't encouraging reading. Ultimately they would want to be in Asia and Europe too, with as few barriers as possible, with us as the mediator or not, hence the queue metaphor. Quality, extent and contingent growth from such trade, however, would be a more piecemeal, less profitable fare. Not good if you're banking on plugging a funding gap somewhere (same risk as Scottish oil was in the IndyRef -- an assumption on a volatile footing, arguably extending to whole markets rather than just one commodity; the stakes are higher too).

So for me it's really coming down to a choice between virtual globalism, held back by the actual core vote support behind Brexit, and actual globalism and an outward look towards Europe with the view of linking it up with the US and China, gradually and with less range initially than was proposed under TTIP in the former case.

As before, I don't see using EU clout and its larger market as buffer for inter-meshing with such trade partners as a bad thing. It's an extra layer of protection. Having a veto is a nice nuclear option too.

The problem being they clearly wanted us in to influence the eu, Cameron has shown no spine and said he would not resist the issues with the NHS so suggests he's just a leashed US puppy that they wanted to help move ttip forward. We will probably get more remain camp bluster about how ttip isn't bad and that we are better in the eu but it looks safer to have a white wash and get rid of cameron and the EU for failing to restrict such harmful policy. Some of your points though show an extension in the talks to the eu are possible but try and portray it as if it might not go ahead. No country would want to be 2 years into negotiating and want to drop the ball and have the other side want to move elsewhere. Especially not if we're to believe the EU never does any wrong as some suggest as well.

I'm more concerned by being sabotaged by exiteers elsewhere on the continent in the process. In their eyes they won't be hurting the UK but the EU. You're also underestimating the effect of tit-for-tat exchanges as the details of the new trade deal go through the EUP in the first instance. They don't have the clout across the EU to stall it indefinitely, but using extension talks as leverage for concessions is in their interest. This is against a background of elections across the continent.

Camexit is an active source of speculation, yes. This isn't a positive -- you're swapping drivers on the go. Furthermore, the US uses Britain as a portal into the single market, a relationship contingent on our current regulatory perks agreed with the EU and said access being what it is; TTIP or no TTIP, a different sort of FTA and several years of uncertainty in negotiations forces a reassessment in how they would handle operations going forward. Heavy industry is harder to realign, services easier.

Trade does look like it could take a while but to be honest I believe the US is bluffing. They mainly said what they said as ttip hadn't been leaked at that point and they wanted it to go ahead which is increasingly unlikely due to the harmful nature coming out. It's a gamble still but our trade with the eu will stay in place in the mean time anyway (which we are always reminded is our biggest trading partner) due to the divorce period so there isn't that much to lose. Maybe I've missed one point but what are all these big issues we will have outside of trade that Boris needs to work on?

The big issues for Boris, as PM or a major figure in a post-referendum cabinet, are: heading into talks with a deficit at home and rising borrowing; hitting legal bumps in negotiations not related to trade; when the effect of the FTA bites in, a further need to cover a GDP drop to ensure jobs and growth isn't shed precariously; the difficult task of heading into Asia, a harder market for our services (not just finance) to crack, without anything concrete from the US; raising market confidence that it's all going to deliver; China/India et al slowing down, or entering competition for global services trade as their economies mature; and dealing with any fallout at home, since economic fluxes hit the population disproportionately (lower income -- suffers most; middle classes would feel it; the top bracket might make some money in the turmoil, but getting relatively poorer wouldn't be an issue for most).

Would we be able to afford to call anyone's bluff, and if so, for how long? Anti-Brussels rhetoric won't stop the economic turbulence nor the concessions we would give out to stop it sensibly; nor does it hold huge sway across the pond and in Asia, where they do want to deal with the EU. And we're back to the relative market sizes determining how quickly we can start buying and selling without dampeners. This is essentially what Remainers mean when they caution against the compound effect being like that of a recent recession: you lose some growth permanently.

 

[datalol-jack]

And they can do that because their population is the same as Longbenton. Yeah, I'd never head of it, either. What makes you think we'd be allowed to do the same?

I believe this is the treaty delta0 is referring to: http://www.efta.int/media/documents...t/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf.

Chapter 4 is all about safeguards.

The conditional break, Article 113:

Article 113
1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify
the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.

2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to
finding a commonly acceptable solution.

3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of
notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the
expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior
examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to
remedy the situation.
For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.

4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and
shall provide all relevant information.

5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months
from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation
of their scope of application.
Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.

 

[datalol-jack]

I'm aware of what he's referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of Longbenton. The idea that because somewhere the size of Longbenton can claim a need to restrict migration does not mean we'd be able to.

The conditionality is proportional, subject to evidence and agreement, yes. Which is why I'm surprised a Brexit supporter would brandish it as an on/off immigration tap for political reasons. It's a bit more complicated than that, and is the very sort of negotiation they don't seem to approve of. I'll need to research when/if such a measure was in place and what relative effect it had. But as in my PBS example, people who expect the net numbers to drop like a lead balloon will be very miffed, regardless.

 

[delta0]

And they can do that because their population is the same as Longbenton. Yeah, I'd never head of it, either. What makes you think we'd be allowed to do the same?

It is irrespective of country size or population. It is a privilege given to EEA countries.

The conditionality is proportional, subject to evidence and agreement, yes. Which is why I'm surprised a Brexit supporter would brandish it as an on/off immigration tap for political reasons. It's a bit more complicated than that, and is the very sort of negotiation they don't seem to approve of. I'll need to research when/if such a measure was in place and what relative effect it had. But as in my PBS example, people who expect the net numbers to drop like a lead balloon will be very miffed, regardless.

On/off tap? Why would you want to do that?

I would use it to block benefits migrants and people coming here to beg at a minimum. As they are a unnecessary burden on society by taking more than they give. I would then move onto low skilled jobs that have an excess of skills because of the EU. Basically I would use it to follow our tier 1 and 2 visa system that designates roles that are actually required or allows companies to hire from abroad. Anything else would be regarded as harmful.

 

[Delvis]

Is there a run down of the pro's and con's (real life) of staying in/out anywhere?

Also, am I meant to vote online or what, not had any cards through the post

 

[datalol-jack]

Is there a run down of the pro's and con's (real life) of staying in/out anywhere?

Also, am I meant to vote online or what, not had any cards through the post

The vote is set for 23 June. If you're registered to vote, in person or by post, you should get the relevant details nearer the time. Local elections have nothing to do with the referendum ballot.

 

[delta0]

Is there a run down of the pro's and con's (real life) of staying in/out anywhere?

Also, am I meant to vote online or what, not had any cards through the post

One here:

You need to be registered to vote and you will get a card nearer the vote date June 23rd.

 

[datalol-jack]

One here:

You need to be registered to vote and you will get a card nearer the vote date June 23rd.

Where did this image actually come from? I know Hannan re-tweeted it, but what's the source?

 

[Delvis]

I'm registered to vote for everything else so assume I'm registered? Or is this seperate?

That chart may as well be in Spanish as well.

 

[datalol-jack]

I'm registered to vote for everything else so assume I'm registered? Or is this seperate?

That chart may as well be in Spanish as well.

Yes, being a registered voter is enough. There's no separate registration for the ref.

 

[Mr Jack]

One here:

That's not a list of pros and cons of voting in or out. It's a comparison of certain factors of being in the EU against being an EEA member. What happens in the case of a Brexit is vastly more uncertain.

 

[datalol-jack]

Is there a run down of the pro's and con's (real life) of staying in/out anywhere?

A quick summary from a Bremainian, then:

In: Your job and household income remain as they are now; so do prices; you can travel, live, study, work and retire in any EU country; same applies for EU citizens already in the UK or intending to come here; Dave hangs around as PM until he steps down before the next election; the Tory manifesto programme continues, without interruption to arrange a new relationship with the EU; your MP and MEPs retains their current roles and powers.

Out: Economy takes a hit, from a combination of events and uncertainty surrounding Brexit, so your income and job may take a reasonable hit, depending on what income bracket/sector you're in, and how dependent it is on EU import/export volumes; prices will fluctuate; freedom of movement is in question, we either become like Canada, and would have to get visas to the EU/have different benefits and travel arrangements, or we will remain in the EEA with freedom of movement in tact, and possibly a break measure as delta points out; PM has a high likelihood of being ousted, BoJo being the most likely replacement at short notice; the Tory manifesto takes a break, as negotiations with Europe take place; MEPs vanish, you will now have to influence European issues via petitioning your local representative in parliament, and him petitioning the government/raising it in parliament/he gets fractionally more control over areas of any new international deals; economic migrant numbers largely remain in a net range Kippers won't like.

In either case, the Chancellor may soon start balancing the books with a mixture of further cuts and tax bumps here and there.

 

[Metallifux]

I'm aware of what he's referring to. I'm saying I've never heard of Longbenton. The idea that because somewhere the size of Longbenton can claim a need to restrict migration does not mean we'd be able to.

Longbenton is in Newcastle. Home to the largest Dwp offices in the country. It used to also have the longest corridor in Europe. I traversed it once on the way to the pub in under 5 mins. An EU directive saw it pulled down as Germany wanted to have the longest corridor.

 

[Hagar]

An EU directive saw it pulled down as Germany wanted to have the longest corridor.

....since it lost the ones between West Germany and Berlin.

 

[Mr Jack]

Dave hangs around as PM until he steps down before the next election

You really think so? I think Dave will be gone not too long after the Referendum whatever happens. If he loses it, he will lose credibility and they'll try and oust him; if he wins it the fury of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party will topple him.

I think he's more likely to go this year than not and I can't see him making it through 2017 regardless.