EU referendum

[not so old china hand]

1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Yes it would be.  But I don't know what EU rules England was able to influence in their favor and what EU rules are now going to imposed on them that they no longer have a say in.  Can you enlighten me with examples?

In February Cameron came back with concessions from the EU in three key areas: Sovereignty, Welfare Benefits for Migrants, and Competitiveness. These were watered-down versions of the original draft proposals but better than nothing.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher (whom God preserve of Westminster) played hard-ball and negotiated a large reduction in the UK's net contributions to the EEC.

Since the UK selects one of the European Commissioners and has a seat on the Council of Ministers it can influence and veto but not control.

On the other hand we are being told by Mr. Juncker that if we wish to trade with EU countries after Brexit we will have to accept the principle of "freedom of movement".

My own feeling having viewed affairs from afar is that Britain did not use her veto enough in the "noughties" when the EU was ever swelling with countries from Central Europe and the Balkans. 

Once outside the of EU it will be a case of "Our bat, our ball. If you want to play we make the rules to suit us".

Edited July 5, 2016 by not so old china hand
After thoughts and spelling

[stevewool]

Well we have our own bat and ball now, and its all new too,

None of us knows whats down the line but its not going to happen overnight thats for sure, we have made the choice not 1 million but 17 million voted out , will that ever happen again who knows, but one thing is known ,

The EU and the world needs to changed to help everyone , not just themselves

[Kuya John]

7 hours ago, mogo51 said:

 

I don't think UK has anything to worry about, they have many options for Trade ie Commonwealth countries.

5 hours ago, mogo51 said:

The downturn in the Sterling will only be a blimp on the radar as I see it. Things will return to 'normal' whatever that means.

I personally think UK made the right decision.

Thanks for your optimism Mogo,

Sure beats the doom and gloom politicians etc here in UK.

At least there are plenty of jobs in Government with all these Politicians resigning

[robert k]

4 hours ago, not so old china hand said:

In February Cameron came back with concessions from the EU in three key areas: Sovereignty, Welfare Benefits for Migrants, and Competitiveness. These were watered-down versions of the original draft proposals but better than nothing.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher (whom God preserve of Westminster) played hard-ball and negotiated a large reduction in the UK's net contributions to the EEC.

Since the UK selects one of the European Commissioners and has a seat on the Council of Ministers it can influence and veto but not control.

On the other hand we are being told by Mr. Juncker that if we wish to trade with EU countries after Brexit we will have to accept the principle of "freedom of movement".

My own feeling having viewed affairs from afar is that Britain did not use her veto enough in the "noughties" when the EU was ever swelling with countries from Central Europe and the Balkans. 

Once outside the of EU it will be a case of "Our bat, our ball. If you want to play we make the rules to suit us".

The Brits have total sovereignty in their hands right now, they voted for it. Benefits for migrants are not so necessary if you send them back to the EU or even just stop the flow and try to assimilate what you have? Competitiveness? Britain has historically bought more than they have sold and there has been no change in that so far, may be too little too late.

If those who provide the seat of EU power don't like it, they should have used their veto.

[robert k]

8 hours ago, HikiSpray said:

But those countries are in the EEA. Doesn't Article 50 mean that the UK would be out of all agreements? If so, I have a feeling it will be a few years of financial "pain" for the UK before they can negotiate new trade agreements.

 

Just thinking out loud ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

There is already talk in the US of simply allowing Britain to join the new Asian trade treaty which is near enacting, OR simply extending the same deal to Britain as the US gives to the EU and I don't see a problem with that. 

I don't see what the big deal is about with trade agreements. You either want to trade or you don't. You set the prices for your goods and they either sell or they don't. It seems to me the politicians drag things out so they can be wined and dined and fly around the world at taxpayer expense while they exercise power. If politicians had to work out deals in their office over Skype, they probably wouldn't feel the need to drag things out.

[Snowy79]

A major area that a lot of people haven't even thought about was the threat from Russia towards the EU and with thanks to Merkel a massive threat to the UK. The UK inside the EU was the key player pushing for trade sanctions on Russia. This has been hurting Russia's finances for a few years now resulting in serious debts for Russia that's due to mature next year. Just about the time the EU is looking to expand and include some ex soviet countries. Putin isn't a happy bunny.

We've got the war in Libya with the USA, UK and some EU countries arming rebels and Russia arming the Libyan government. Merkel in her infinite wisdom has allowed easy access to Europe to over one million refugees (migrants, terrorists). Russia now has plenty of friendly terrorist cells all over Europe and the ability to arm them. You can bet the increased terrorist attacks have got some support from Russia and the ones that are foiled will be down to Russia giving little tip offs in return for easing of sanctions. 

If the UK remains in the EU and it increases in size i could see some serious terrorist attacks within the UK to punish the UK and to weaken the EU. This could result in a possible military conflict between Russia and the EU. Touch wood the EU has now been weakened to an extent that it's not looked on as a big threat to Russia now.

[mogo51]

Kuya John, there are always the 'doomsters' in whatever field is the subject of the day.  I grew up with UK being our biggest trade partner, then they joined the EU.  All sorts of 'doom' predicted, we moved on, as I have said, so will UK.

Australia has retained an alliance with UK and I believe always will.  Same NZ and Canada. India to a lesser extent but there and wanting to increase trade with UK.  They have many options.  

Robert K, 'free trade agreements', I Soooo agree with you on this.  They are a load of bollocks IMO.  I am in Thailand and Australia has such an agreement with them.  Like hell they do, Thailand charges no 'Import duty' but then sets about slapping 200% surreptitious taxes to ALL imported goods.

Does the Australian Government do anything about that - NO.  I have written 5 letters to both major parties in Australia and have not received a reply.  I did get a reply from the Australian Export Commission (a private organisation) that set out these 'slight of hand taxes'.

Vehicles manufactured in Thailand are allowed into Australia at zero tax - the result is that the Australian car industry is to close by the end of 2016 or early 2017.  Now that makes sense.

In the end, British resilience will prevail - look at the history of your Country and smell the roses.

 

 

[HikiSpray]

14 hours ago, robert k said:

There is already talk in the US of simply allowing Britain to join the new Asian trade treaty which is near enacting, OR simply extending the same deal to Britain as the US gives to the EU and I don't see a problem with that. 

I don't see what the big deal is about with trade agreements. You either want to trade or you don't. You set the prices for your goods and they either sell or they don't. It seems to me the politicians drag things out so they can be wined and dined and fly around the world at taxpayer expense while they exercise power. If politicians had to work out deals in their office over Skype, they probably wouldn't feel the need to drag things out.

Would be nice if the world worked like that.

[robert k]

8 hours ago, HikiSpray said:

Would be nice if the world worked like that.

It can if we held our representatives responsible. I think that was what the referendum was about. The appointed EU leadership was not popularly elected and couldn't be held accountable.

Edited July 6, 2016 by robert k

[MikeSwede]

On 07/05/2016 at 9:24 AM, Kuya John said:

Thanks for your optimism Mogo,

Sure beats the doom and gloom politicians etc here in UK.

At least there are plenty of jobs in Government with all these Politicians resigning

The famous British way of understatements rarely apply to the tabloids. Reading their headlines, it looks like UK would be a sinking ship without hope of recovering.

Can't be very healthy to wake up to that every morning.

Sure, they disagreed but that's what we call "democracy"; UK will be fine.

Politicians that do the fatal error of gaming for one single question, are bound to burn out after votes are counted, and when a country votes to step out of such an agreement as EU, then the board of directors has to change.

New visions, new visionaries.