Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Really, we'll see. If we leave there will be five to ten years of economic chaos as the pound falls, investment crashes and unemployment soars. But if that has-been Thatcher lap dog Lord Lawson says it's OK, then clearly there's nothing to worry about. 

Romi,

I don't know the answers to any of your questions. That was partly the reason for starting this thread.

First. What are the main issues we need to consider ?

Second. What are the main risks associated with each issue ?

Third. What is the best probable outcome of each issue if we remain ?

Fourth. What is the best probable outcome if we leave ?

The reason I used the term "Sleep-walking" in the title, is that I consider a higher proportion of those who want CHANGE (ie let's leave) nearly always get up and vote. Those who don't want change, tend to be more lethargic and often don't bother. And if we don't know what the issues are , or the risks and possible outcomes, there is a tendency to "leave it to others to vote"

At the moment, I see a lot of Cameron's team using the "fear of change" or "negative" tactics. They need to take a more positive stance if they want to persuade us to stay. I don't see much positive support from the SNP or Labour, both of whom claim we would be better off "In".

I see a more positive message coming from the "Leave" side of the Conservative Party.

However, politicians aren't above a bit of propaganda or selective exposition of facts, so, as you say,  it would be nice to find some neutral, informed body that can outline issues and risks.

Don Atkinson posted:

However, politicians aren't above a bit of propaganda or selective exposition of facts, so, as you say,  it would be nice to find some neutral, informed body that can outline issues and risks.................

..........................ah! George, just the man......................!!!!!!!!

Hungryhalibut posted:

Really, we'll see. If we leave there will be five to ten years of economic chaos as the pound falls, investment crashes and unemployment soars. But if that has-been Thatcher lap dog Lord Lawson says it's OK, then clearly there's nothing to worry about. 

I suspect that the fear tactics [rather than logical arguments] of the stay in camp [SNP apart, perhaps] will only make the leaving more obvious. After all if 27 nations are going to give us purgatory for leaving, imagine the Hell of creeping federalism that is the aim of the most significant powers in Europe apart from the UK  ... for eternity!

Best wishes from George

Don Atkinson posted

However, politicians aren't above a bit of propaganda or selective exposition of facts, so, as you say,  it would be nice to find some neutral, informed body that can outline issues and risks.................

.............................Ah Nigel !.............just the man.............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Best wishes from George

Hungryhalibut posted:

But if that has-been Thatcher lap dog Lord Lawson says it's OK, then clearly there's nothing to worry about. 

His daughter makes nice cakes... Isn't that a good reason to believe him :-)

With regard to the SNP, most of their supporters are likely to vote to leave since they feel that will justify another Scotch referendum. I am more in favour of preserving the UK union than our marriage to the EU. As for the latter, I don't know the real facts on which to make a decision, even though I would like to. Even then I would have difficulty deciding. As for the great mass of voters I doubt many would be capable of assimilating the facts and will choose to vote on a small part of the overall argument which they think they understand - eg immigration or job security.

Incidentally, do all the EU migrants living here get a vote?

wanderer posted:

With regard to the SNP, most of their supporters are likely to vote to leave since they feel that will justify another Scotch referendum. I am more in favour of preserving the UK union than our marriage to the EU. As for the latter, I don't know the real facts on which to make a decision, even though I would like to. Even then I would have difficulty deciding. As for the great mass of voters I doubt many would be capable of assimilating the facts and will choose to vote on a small part of the overall argument which they think they understand - eg immigration or job security.

Incidentally, do all the EU migrants living here get a vote?

I can empathise with much of what you say.

The SNP has indicated they might justify another Independence vote if their was a large vote in Scotland to REMAIN in the EU, but the UK as a whole voted to leave. So I think their voters will vote "IN"

I am also in favour of preserving the UK Union.

As for the great mass of EU Referendum voters, I think you have summed up their voting decision accurately.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Romi,

No extra-tersetrials are going to help you in this.

If the 27 other EU states object to the UK leaving then as Lord Lawson said, “We simply walk away, and that is that.” 

You see the truth is that each of us 28 member states are civilised countries that by now have no business interfering in the internal affairs of our friends. We can easily make a decent trade area. We can make a decent defence system - it already exists- called Nato. The UK has no business having our aid to friends controlled by Brussels. We can make bi-lateral arrangements with Poland and Hungary - for two examples - without reference to what other nations want to do in Europe.

In the UK no doubt that we can arrive at mutually beneficial arrangements for the movement of workers and other aspects without being tied to an inflexible system tied to Brussels. 

It is time to be fair not only to the UK citizen, but our friends in Europe, who possibly will see that the UK is both right to become independent of Brussels and will follow our example to their own benefit as well.

The future is bright, and the future is brighter outside the EU.

ATB from George

Dear George,

You make the whole process of coming out of Europe seem so easy and so safe and secure.  Today I read in the Times an article written by Philip Aldrick Economics Editor which I quote 'Leaving the European Union would drive the pound down to parity with the Euro for the first time since the single currency was launched in 1999, analysts at UBS have warned.  The cabinet commented that leaving the EU could lead to a "decade of uncertainty" '

  The above article seems somewhat at odds with your analysis 'The future is bright, and the future is brighter outside the EU.'  My heart wishes that your analysis is correct but it would be folly to ignore the above Times article warning just because it not what we would like to hear?  

Don Atkinson posted:

Romi,

I don't know the answers to any of your questions. That was partly the reason for starting this thread.

First. What are the main issues we need to consider ?

Second. What are the main risks associated with each issue ?

Third. What is the best probable outcome of each issue if we remain ?

Fourth. What is the best probable outcome if we leave ?

The reason I used the term "Sleep-walking" in the title, is that I consider a higher proportion of those who want CHANGE (ie let's leave) nearly always get up and vote. Those who don't want change, tend to be more lethargic and often don't bother. And if we don't know what the issues are , or the risks and possible outcomes, there is a tendency to "leave it to others to vote"

At the moment, I see a lot of Cameron's team using the "fear of change" or "negative" tactics. They need to take a more positive stance if they want to persuade us to stay. I don't see much positive support from the SNP or Labour, both of whom claim we would be better off "In".

I see a more positive message coming from the "Leave" side of the Conservative Party.

However, politicians aren't above a bit of propaganda or selective exposition of facts, so, as you say,  it would be nice to find some neutral, informed body that can outline issues and risks.

Don,

The title of your thread for me is excellent, that is how I feel about the whole situation.  In the back of my mind the Conservative Party should never have offered the choice of leaving the EU to the public vote so soon without proper information given to the public about EU from preferably a neutral source.  A lot of current information given out on Europe tends to be from sources who have an an 'interest' in the matter, there seems to be a lot of conflict of interests situations.  You are right Labour are not giving much support to the staying "in" EU, I think that may be because they feel safer to watch the whole situation develop from the sidelines, not get involved just in case the Conservative Party make a complete hash of it or to step in after the event to share the lime light with the Conservatives if staying in EU proves a success...!  (that kind of tactics has been deployed before in the last war ).  

wanderer posted:

With regard to the SNP, most of their supporters are likely to vote to leave since they feel that will justify another Scotch referendum. I am more in favour of preserving the UK union than our marriage to the EU.

I think that would be a foolish thing to do.  While the referendum will be decided on the total vote, the constituent parts of the vote will be known.  So if Scotland votes to leave the EU the rationale for another referendum on Scottish independence would be undermined, unless the rest of the UK voted to stay in the EU!

During the campaign on Scottish independence I seem to recall the SNP as a party has been very pro staying in the EU and expressed the view that Scotland could stay in the EU even if the rest of the UK left (which I don't think it could as it would have to seek membership afresh). So are SNP supporters going to vote against what the the SNP's policy?

Dear George

Pardon me but quotes functionality hasn't caught up with my browser.

I'm afraid that a bi-lateral arrangement with Poland or Hungary, for example, on matters of trade or other areas under the remit of the EU. On these matter, the EU acts as a union and negotiates as a bloc.

Can I suggest some bed-time reading? The Bruges Group are a think-tank very much campaigning for exit from the EU. I don't agree with their aims but I do admire what they have done. They have taken a long hard look at what will be necessary for the UK to leave the EU and have produced a road map for exit. I haven't seen any other organisation on the Leave side do this. They have concluded that in the medium term, there is just too much for the UK to attempt to negotiate it's own arrangements in two years and it will have to rely on joining EFTA and continuing membership of the EEA agreement. This would be possible as all the agreements for trade etc (.....and there are a lot of etc's) would be available - ready-made. They describe this process in:

Exit EU to EFTA

The UK will be out of the EU but in other publications they recognise that many voters will be unsatisfied that this does nothing to end the free movement principal and proposes further stages of withdrawal after several years EFTA membership. The total for the full withdrawal is 15 to 20 years! This isn't part of Project Fear, it's from a pro-exit group.

Best wishes

Chris

The EEC should revert to its six original members in my view. As it is the EU is doomed as an institution, and the less directly we are tied to it by treaty the better when the inevitable break up comes. You cannot have monetary union that is sustainable with such diverse economies as Greece and Germany for two starkly different examples. 

I believe that the old Communist block nations of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia [now Slovakia and the Czech Republic] would form a good unit that would well form a strong relationship with the UK after the demise of the EU, as would Scandinavia and at least some others. 

I do realise that under the current rules the UK once free of the EU would not be in any position to form bilateral trade agreements with current EU member States. One must hope that not only will the UK leave but other sensible electorates will eventually lead their own governments out of it following a good example.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

I am sure that the average voter will be able to work it out for her or himself!

As there is no certain authority who can predict the future giving to much credence to experts, pundits, and politicians on the subject may be rather unreliable, as they are not biblical prophets! 

Who knows quite how Germany react? Will they put up the costs of their excellent cars? I doubt it! They will sell fewer of them in the UK if they do. 

Who knows if the French will want to avoid selling their wonderful wines in the UK? It seems unlikely to me. 

And I bet that the Southern Europeans will continue to sell Olive oil in the UK. 

Will they continue to buy the things we make well in the UK? I rather suspect that in the interest of reciprocal trade that they will. 

It will be a pragmatic policy. 

ATB from George

 

Should Britain vote to leave the EU I suspect the EU will not make it easy or straightforward for the UK banking sector, or any other UK sector, to access the worlds biggest market.  Britain has over 200 foreign banks operating here and should we vote to leave the worlds biggest market you can bet that Frankfurt and Dublin will be vying for that business.  They will have made approaches to these banks already in advance of the referendum and one sure way of making it more attractive for them to move from the UK to Ireland or Germany is to make the UK's trading position more difficult with the EU. 

The EU is effectively a club and like any other club it expects from it's members certain responsibilities and also confers certain benefits.  You cannot leave a club and think you will still avail yourself to all the benefits of that club without the responsibilities and costs, it simply does not work that way and it cannot work that way otherwise how could this club, any club, continue and survive?  If it were to be the case that the UK left, stopped paying the 'subscription fees' and yet somehow retained all the benefits of full membership, how do you think the remaining nations would view that?  You'd have a queue of 20 odd nations asking for the same deal.  You'd have a collapse of the whole EU and they've put far too much work into it to allow it to fall on it's arse to keep one moaning country happy.  The very future of the EU would be compromised and threatened if they gave the UK the access it enjoys now, for a fraction of the cost and responsibilities of member states.

What the Out campaign want us to believe is upon a Brexit, the 27 other countries will get together and vote to give us a much, much better deal than they all receive - access to the market and none of the costs.  Personally I just don't see the remaining nations bending over backwards to give us that deal.

wanderer posted:

With regard to the SNP, most of their supporters are likely to vote to leave since they feel that will justify another Scotch referendum. I am more in favour of preserving the UK union than our marriage to the EU. As for the latter, I don't know the real facts on which to make a decision, even though I would like to. Even then I would have difficulty deciding. As for the great mass of voters I doubt many would be capable of assimilating the facts and will choose to vote on a small part of the overall argument which they think they understand - eg immigration or job security.

Incidentally, do all the EU migrants living here get a vote?

I'm sorry but that's nonsense.  For the SNP to call for another referendum, Scots have to vote in favour of membership of the EU then the SNP can argue that the nation has been pulled out of the EU against the wishes of it's people should England vote for Brexit.  If Scots vote to leave the EU and the English vote to leave the EU, on what basis would there be a referendum for Scottish independence?

wanderer posted:

Incidentally, do all the EU migrants living here get a vote?

I don't think anyone answered your question ... so from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887

Who will be able to vote?

British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are resident in the UK, along with UK nationals living abroad who have been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years. Members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar will also be eligible, unlike in a general election. Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.

When Mr Holland states that leaving the EU will have "consequences" for the UK, does that sound like the friendly advice of a close ally, or does it sound like the triumphant gloating of somebody who would be glad to see the back of you ?

Does this endear you to the EU and make you more inclined to vote "in" or does it piss you off and make you more inclined to vote "out" ?

If you chose to simply vote on the basis of someone pissing you off, then that would logically lead to not voting at all, as they are ALL pissing everyone off.

The vote is not about individuals [politicians]  annoying you. It is about historical perspective. Does the UK want or need to be associated with an organisation that would punish us for daring to question their version of wisdom? With Allies like those who would punish us in the UK is it  in our interest [in the medium and long term] to be forced into a straight jacket of these Allies making? If we vote in, we shall be very severely brought to book after the fact ...

My answer is a resounding - NO. 

In the short run these threats will bring a possible crisis, but in the longer term we are better off talking with these kindly friends from an independent position that is outward looking to the whole world rather than than a completely inward looking club or self interested politicians and bureaucrats ...

Time for us to look at the historical perspective rather take the words of here today, gone tomorrow politicians either in Europe or indeed the UK.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

The vote is not about individuals [politicians]  annoying you. It is about historical perspective. Does the UK want or need to be associated with an organisation that would punish us for daring to question their version of wisdom? With Allies like those who would punish us in the UK is it  in our interest [in the medium and long term] to be forced into a straight jacket of these Allies making? If we vote in, we shall be very severely brought to book after the fact ...

My answer is a resounding - NO. 

In the short run these threats will bring a possible crisis, but in the longer term we are better off talking with these kindly friends from an independent position that is outward looking to the whole world rather than than a completely inward looking club or self interested politicians and bureaucrats ...

Time for us to look at the historical perspective rather take the words of here today, gone tomorrow politicians either in Europe or indeed the UK.

ATB from George

Sorry, George, but I beg to differ.  My sense is that a lot of Brexit advocates are nostalgic for what Britain was in the past (Empire and all) and harbour illusions that somehow leaving the EU will bring some of that back.  Rather than look for a historical perspective on which to make a judgement I would suggest people/voters would do much better to look to the future and to have a hard think about where they want the UK to go and the consequences for economic and other prospects.  Do we want to be a big and highly influential player in a club with one of the biggest economies in the world and huge influence or do we want to be a small player standing alone, making noises on the touchlines which few will take much notice of?

Mike 

We are not a highly influential player today in the EU, and never will be. France and Germany reserved that position for themselves from the very start.We are still a late entering player, and will forever be treated so. 

My historical view on the issue, which I beg you consider, is the last forty years since we voted to affirm joining. 

We joined the EEC and ended up with the EU.  ....

By the mid-1970s we were so far from being an Imperial Power that your comment becomes remarkable. 

Only Rhodesia and Honk Kong remained as significant colonies, and at that Rhodesia had managed a complete UDI!

Far from being a top Empire by the time we affirmed our joining the EEC, and what is more none the worse for it.

ATB from George

Our economic position in the World becomes no different in the medium and long term with or without the EU.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

We are not a highly influential player today in the EU, and never will be. France and Germany reserved that position for themselves from the very start.We are still a late entering player, and will forever be treated so. 

My historical view on the issue, which I beg you consider, is the last forty years since we voted to affirm joining. 

We joined the EEC and ended up with the EU.  ....

By the mid-1970s we were so far from being an Imperial Power that your comment becomes remarkable. 

Only Rhodesia and Honk Kong remained as significant colonies, and at that Rhodesia had managed a complete UDI!

Far from being a top Empire by the time we affirmed our joining the EEC, and what is more none the worse for it.

ATB from George

George - I would agree that at one time, say 20 years ago, France and Germany working in tandem dominated the EU. But these days the German France relationship is not as closely aligned and there are many more members. I think the UK carries its full weight in EU matters.

On what we joined, as informed commentators have pointed out, the 'ever-closer political union' stuff was there in the treaties when we joined, and we knew it.  Indeed, that concept was given massive impetus with the creation of the Single Market in 1992 because it brought 'harmonisation' to so many things. The Single Market was something that the UK pressed for hard and Margaret Thatcher signed off.  

Mike  

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Our economic position in the World becomes no different in the medium and long term with or without the EU.

ATB from George

That doesn't seem to be the view of many major UK businesses and business organisations.