Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 09 February 2016
Media interest seems to be focused on the trivial matter of "in-work benefits" to migrant workers from Europe.
Very little informed discussion of the benefits and consequences of us remaining part of Europe v the benefits and consequences of us leaving.
Or am I just not tuning into the appropriate TV channel or overlooking some "White Paper" that is on sale in WH Smith ?
The article does answer some of the questions about Britain's contribution.
But, as we say, no argument (not even a rational one) will convince people who don't want to be convinced. The issue is emotional as well - that is the biggest problem.
Frenchnaim posted:The article does answer some of the questions about Britain's contribution.
That is true. But as you say, it only answerssome of the problems about Britain's financial contribution (direct payment). And my point is that Britain's financial contribution is not really a significant issue.The contribution system could be simplified and IMHO should be simplified.
But there a far more important issues than the contribution system per-se and I don't see much exposition or explanation of any real issues Just sound-bites and as you say, emotional rhetoric.
That's why I suggested we might be sleep-walking, and based on a recent poll, leaving the EU by a margin of 9 points.
Boris is yet un-decided whether to support the in campaign or the out campaign.
Presumably after Friday, politicians on both sides of this issue will be voicing their opinions regarding the main issues that we, the voters, should take into account when deciding whether to vote in or out. Hopefully they will make the main issues crystal clear and likewise give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issues and then, and only then, add their personal forecast about how the future might evolve under each scenario.
Meanwhile, I keep wondering why the Eastern European countries wanted to be part of the EU and why Germany, France, Austria and Denmark all want to remain part of the EU. Perhaps answers would help us in the UK come to a more appropriate decision ?
Dear Don,
The reason why France and Germany in particular wanted to join the Steel Union as it then was, was to bind themselves so closely with France on an economic level that another European War would be unfeasible. At the time De Gaulle stood against Britain, and Churchill was particularly keen to be in from the start. I think Europe would be quite a different place, politically, if we had not been vetoed in the early days by the French administration.
The reasons why the Eastern European countries wanted to join does vary by the individual state. In many ways Poland and Czechoslovakia [as it then was] are part of the middle European culture that Germany in particular is the centre of.
As for the other Eastern European countries, they were on the rebound from Communistic Dictatorships [as were Poland and Czecho, of course] and they would do anything more or less to add security for their exposed position in relation to Russia.
I find it interesting that as soon as Germany re-unified, Norway [the voters not the politicians] decided that joining would not be a good idea. Earlier Norway would have joined, but things were left too late by politicians in the EEC and in Norway.
On the whole I suspect Poland would be somewhat dismayed in the UK votes to leave Europe, and certainly the Irish Republic is not happy either. But which ever way the vote goes, the planet will continue to revolve about its axis, and trade will continue, and it will not result in Russian invasion.
A good settlement will be found for what ever contingency. For an example of that look at Norway. Nothing is perfect, but something closer to ideal may be found in future which ever way the vote goes.
ATB from George
George Fredrik Fiske posted:...
A good settlement will be found for what ever contingency. For an example of that look at Norway. Nothing is perfect, but something closer to ideal may be found in future which ever way the vote goes.
ATB from George
George, I hope you don't mind me referring to only part of your post above.
Much seems to be made on television about how the UK will have to pay as much as we do now if we vote to leave the EU, for "access to the EU market".
Like Norway and Switzerland, these same television commentators also say that we will will have to accept substantial EU legislation for the same reason.
I find these two points both informative and helpful, as they represent a very small start at analysing the pros & cons of staying vs. leaving.
However, while these commentators explain the harsh fate that has befallen the good people of Norway & Switzerland (who pay but have no say in EU matters), these commentators do not appear to mention the most recent example of South Korea. The EU and South Korea signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2011, in which the South Koreans do not have to "pay but have no say". South Korea does not pay at all. The European Commission itself called this FTA "the first of a new generation of FTAs"
If the moderators will permit, here is the link to the European Commission's website on the subject of the FTA with South Korea:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/poli...untries/south-korea/
Also of note is the fact that the EU has a small trade surplus with South Korea, mainly in services. Trade in goods is almost breakeven.
Like many here, I too would greatly appreciate some more facts on the pros & cons of the UK staying in vs. leaving the EU, so that I may make at least a partially informed decision.
Best regards from an ill informed FT
Dear FT,
There is a some annoyance in Norway at the needs for compliance with EU standards in manufacturing even extend to non-export production, and of course the Norwegians have no say in these rules, BUT Norway does retain its national sovereignty and ultimately could make what ever decision it wanted without reference to anyone else in Europe.
On the whole I think that is the best that can be made of it. If one wants to trade then obviously the export standards appllied in manufacturing must be complied with. It is a safety issue as much as anything else.
But it is also important to realise that countries like Germany have a real interest in preserving trade with the UK. And trade is a two way street.
I don’t expect that most politicians have any more real idea of the future than those who vote for them on the whole. But they have vested political interests in terms of their careers. Much more likely motivation for their various positions on Europe, I would think!
The future for the UK within the EU seems as unpredictable as that outside it. And anyone who tells you otherwise is claiming the status of a prophet. On the whole prophets went out of fashion in Biblical times.
ATB from George
George Fredrik Fiske posted:Dear FT,
There is a some annoyance in Norway at the needs for compliance with EU standards in manufacturing even extend to non-export production, and of course the Norwegians have no say in these rules, BUT Norway does retain its national sovereignty and ultimately could make what ever decision it wanted without reference to anyone else in Europe.
On the whole I think that is the best that can be made of it. If one wants to trade then obviously the export standards appllied in manufacturing must be complied with. It is a safety issue as much as anything else.
But it is also important to realise that countries like Germany have a real interest in preserving trade with the UK. And trade is a two way street.
I don’t expect that most politicians have any more real idea of the future than those who vote for them on the whole. But they have vested political interests in terms of their careers. Much more likely motivation for their various positions on Europe, I would think!
The future for the UK within the EU seems as unpredictable as that outside it. And anyone who tells you otherwise is claiming the status of a prophet. On the whole prophets went out of fashion in Biblical times.
ATB from George
Hello George,
I have highlighted one part of your post (your views are interesting and might re-assure many a nervous voter BTW).
I agree that many of our politicians probably have no real idea of the future regardless of the subject, but I think the Ministers and Secretaries of State have access to and take advice from "experts".
It would be nice IMHO if these politicians and their experts were to share their knowledge, especially if the knowledge was properly caveated eg "this forecast is highly likely" "that forecast depends on too many intangibles and is uncertain" "this other forecast is crucial to global stability" " that other forecast is almost insignificant"
Otherwise we will be voting based on emotion and BBC/ITV propergander...........
...........propergander............
combination of "proper" = "right old....." and "gander" = "let's have a look".........
just in case you think I can't spell (which I can't) 
Were we not told that the security of the UK [and by extension to some extent the World] depended on eliminating the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq had?
An expert is a “former drip under pressure!"
Believe half you read and nothing you hear and you will have a quarter of the truth!
One sees the truth far more in the incremental changes over time. The EU has incrementally morphed out of a trade block into a block that now proclaims“ever closer Union.”
Goodness knows where that will lead!
Best wishes from George
An interesting discussion here, but I do think there are some generalisations that have little substance in reality. These particularly relate to issues of sovereignty and the law. The nature of some of the more sweeping comments in the public debate suggest that nothing at all is decided by the UK government and parliament, but that Cameron and other PMs simply carried out instructions from faceless Brussells bureaucrats. So I really don't understand what the issues around sovereignty really amount to. What are the really significant decisions that have been made and imposed on the UK that have been so deleterious? We decided not to join the Euro or Schengen and we were not forced to do so.
I did vote against joining the EU in the previous referendum, but now I am sure we should stay in. I was concerned before about the effects of a free market Europe on areas of the economy that might be better under state control, but now it seems to me that outside the EU we will be much more likely to continue the trend towards an American style economy and culture where individual rights are eroded and the big corporations become even more dominant. Why is it the right who are loudest in shouting for exit?
In addition, I suspect that many of those advocating Brexit - despite their claims for the size of our economy etc - are really little Englanders and inward looking. I believe in an internationalist view of the world.
I hope we stay in and I also hope that if we do those who advocate exit will be quiet and that we can develop a new and much more positive attitude to the EU and a foreign policy to match.
Cdb posted:I hope we stay in and I also hope that if we do those who advocate exit will be quiet and that we can develop a new and much more positive attitude to the EU and a foreign policy to match.
If we do stay in, I agree with what you have written above assuming that by "will be quiet" refers to wanting to get out.
If we are "in" then we should work hard to ensure the EU is the way "we" want it and not simply be dragged along by the way "others" want it.
Or is this being somewhat naive ?
The reason why France and Germany in particular wanted to join the Steel Union as it then was, was to bind themselves so closely with France on an economic level that another European War would be unfeasible. At the time De Gaulle stood against Britain, and Churchill was particularly keen to be in from the start. I think Europe would be quite a different place, politically, if we had not been vetoed in the early days by the French administration.
First time I've read that Churchill wanted to be in from the start. I've just re-read the speech he made in Zurich in 1946, and it's ambiguous, to say the least. Europe, yes, certainly, but with Britain? Not so sure...
His views of what the "United States of Europe" should be are quite relevant today, though. There's nothing about economic gains or otherwise. I personally don't think much of the argument, which one often finds in the posts, that Britain can leave the European Union, as the Germans will still want to sell us their BMWs, and the French their Renaults. It smacks too much of political and economic expediency.
May I also remind you that De Gaulle's first veto was in 1963, not in the early days - or perhaps I'm too old to realise that 1963 was a very long time ago, and not yesterday. And the reasons for his veto are well-known.
Anyway, as you both agree, no one can tell what will happen if Britain leaves the EU. I'm sure the "experts" don't know, when they can't predict when the next economic crisis will occur.
Another thing is, what value should we attach to a referendum which, in all likelihood, will be a very close thing? And what happens if the turnout is low?
Just a minor point: the most powerful body in the EU is the Council of Ministers (most of them elected in their own country). The "bureaucrats" do mostly what they are told.
Do what they are told!
M. Jacque Dellors!
Non, non, non, Monsieur Delors!
To paraphrase a late British Prime Minister!
Best wishes from George
Frenchnaim posted:The reason why France and Germany in particular wanted to join the Steel Union as it then was, was to bind themselves so closely with France on an economic level that another European War would be unfeasible. At the time De Gaulle stood against Britain, and Churchill was particularly keen to be in from the start. I think Europe would be quite a different place, politically, if we had not been vetoed in the early days by the French administration.
First time I've read that Churchill wanted to be in from the start. I've just re-read the speech he made in Zurich in 1946, and it's ambiguous, to say the least. Europe, yes, certainly, but with Britain? Not so sure...
His views of what the "United States of Europe" should be are quite relevant today, though. There's nothing about economic gains or otherwise. I personally don't think much of the argument, which one often finds in the posts, that Britain can leave the European Union, as the Germans will still want to sell us their BMWs, and the French their Renaults. It smacks too much of political and economic expediency.
May I also remind you that De Gaulle's first veto was in 1963, not in the early days - or perhaps I'm too old to realise that 1963 was a very long time ago, and not yesterday. And the reasons for his veto are well-known.
Anyway, as you both agree, no one can tell what will happen if Britain leaves the EU. I'm sure the "experts" don't know, when they can't predict when the next economic crisis will occur.
Another thing is, what value should we attach to a referendum which, in all likelihood, will be a very close thing? And what happens if the turnout is low?
I would be surprised to the point of eating my substantial woollen fabric hat if the turnout is low!
ATB from George
I wouldn't describe Jacques Delors as a bureaucrat... You don't actually SEE the bureaucrats, George - nor do you see the lobbyists, far worse than the bureaucrats...
Frenchnaim posted:The reason why France and Germany in particular wanted to join the Steel Union as it then was, was to bind themselves so closely with France on an economic level that another European War would be unfeasible. At the time De Gaulle stood against Britain, and Churchill was particularly keen to be in from the start. I think Europe would be quite a different place, politically, if we had not been vetoed in the early days by the French administration.
First time I've read that Churchill wanted to be in from the start. I've just re-read the speech he made in Zurich in 1946, and it's ambiguous, to say the least. Europe, yes, certainly, but with Britain? Not so sure...
His views of what the "United States of Europe" should be are quite relevant today, though. There's nothing about economic gains or otherwise. I personally don't think much of the argument, which one often finds in the posts, that Britain can leave the European Union, as the Germans will still want to sell us their BMWs, and the French their Renaults. It smacks too much of political and economic expediency.
May I also remind you that De Gaulle's first veto was in 1963, not in the early days - or perhaps I'm too old to realise that 1963 was a very long time ago, and not yesterday. And the reasons for his veto are well-known.
Anyway, as you both agree, no one can tell what will happen if Britain leaves the EU. I'm sure the "experts" don't know, when they can't predict when the next economic crisis will occur.
Another thing is, what value should we attach to a referendum which, in all likelihood, will be a very close thing? And what happens if the turnout is low?
Thanks for this historical correction. That too was what I remembered - that Churchill was all for a form of European union but that it would be a bit beneath the UK to take part. Then when we did first try to join up, De Gaulle vetoed it.
On another point made here - that the architects of the EEC (and the iron and steel arrangement before that - if my memory is correct) were always intent on developing the treaty into a broader political entity. And I really don't think that when I voted not to join in 1975 that it was only a free trade area that was on offer. And of course Thatcher signed up to wider political development of the EU when she was PM.
A very good analysis there Cdp. Like yourself I voted against joining the E.C., but having since set up & run a successful business that depended to some extent on the European market I really think leaving the E.U. Would be a poor move. Yes, we'll survive, but trade will be hampered as a consequence.
Personally I think the quicker we leave behind outdated ideas of sovereignty the better and we need accept we're with Europe, not against it. We're in the E.U., so that's "We" isn't it?
Frenchnaim posted:I wouldn't describe Jacques Delors as a bureaucrat... You don't actually SEE the bureaucrats, George - nor do you see the lobbyists, far worse than the bureaucrats...
If we leave the EU, we can safely ignore a whole layer of grey suits!
Bravo!
ATB from George
I would be surprised to the point of eating my substantial woollen fabric hat if the turnout is low!
I'll remember that... with sauerkraut or cassoulet?
Uncooked, my dear friend!
Video on youtube if it happens!
Very best wishes from an half Englander! George
PS: Pasteurised in the washing machine though!
Video on youtube if it happens!
Incidental music by?
(Sorry, completely off-topic!)
Don Atkinson posted:Cdb posted:I hope we stay in and I also hope that if we do those who advocate exit will be quiet and that we can develop a new and much more positive attitude to the EU and a foreign policy to match.
If we do stay in, I agree with what you have written above assuming that by "will be quiet" refers to wanting to get out.
Yes - i.e. accept that the result is final!
Clive
Frenchnaim posted:Video on youtube if it happens!
Incidental music by?
(Sorry, completely off-topic!)
Something minimalist! Avo Part comes to mind!
We should stop fooling about, but sometimes gallows humour is inevitable when something really serious is at stake!
Best from G
Cdb posted:Don Atkinson posted:Cdb posted:I hope we stay in and I also hope that if we do those who advocate exit will be quiet and that we can develop a new and much more positive attitude to the EU and a foreign policy to match.
If we do stay in, I agree with what you have written above assuming that by "will be quiet" refers to wanting to get out.
Yes - i.e. accept that the result is final!
Clive
Or emigrate ... Outside the EU ...