Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UKs referendum on the EU membership

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Some rebate. France and Italy pay more, but contribute less.

    And don't get me started with net benefitors
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kato View Post
      It's funny that right around the time Cameron announces the "opt-out date", the London Stock Exchange announces that it's about to be swallowed by the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. The City bailing out of a bail-out Britain...

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35639157

      .
      Yeah nah. A stock exchange is a coffee house where financiers exchange stock.

      'The City' is a financial centre.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_centre#Ranking
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        Some rebate. France and Italy pay more, but contribute less.

        And don't get me started with net benefitors
        So what? A solidarity scheme is never about benefitting from it. And countries that don't want to take part in a solidarity union? Good riddance. Each and every one of them.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          "is compiled semiannually by the London-based British think-tank Z/Yen"
          *cough*

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            It is actually slightly less than 30 mn euros. Still high, but close to half of what you put.

            Thing is, what do you get for that amount and is it worth it? For instance a market for your companies.

            All up to you folks, by all means do as you see fit, you are the ones who will have to live with it later, be it for better or worse.
            Here ya go Doc , you make a valid point .

            https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc..._CYc4xZpN7ZWUg

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kato View Post
              "is compiled semiannually by the London-based British think-tank Z/Yen"
              *cough*
              Really?
              http://www.longfinance.net/images/GFCI18_23Sep2015.pdf
              You're seriously suggesting Frankfurt will swallow London?
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #22
                Broadly i'm suggesting that the bailout will cause London to drop from its top position - at least - and hurt The City - and that players in The City are already looking for ways to broaden their playing field beyond that possible disaster.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kato View Post
                  Broadly i'm suggesting that the bailout will cause London to drop from its top position - at least - and hurt The City - and that players in The City are already looking for ways to broaden their playing field beyond that possible disaster.
                  Gotcha. Yep, the city would certainly at least temporarily drop to #2 or even #3, whether they remain there is the biggie.
                  Here's a nice precis of the effects of a brexit on both the UK and EU
                  http://www.global-counsel.co.uk/syst..._June_2015.pdf
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by kato View Post
                    So what? A solidarity scheme is never about benefitting from it. And countries that don't want to take part in a solidarity union? Good riddance. Each and every one of them.
                    My spidey senses tell me that there is some underlying frustration with the UK, by Germany, that the UK won't be around to tell what is expected of them.

                    Anyway, if I were voting, I would most likely vote out. There maybe economic consequences, but preserving the borders of my country and her historical heritage, would tend to take first place. The idea of the EU would have been fine if they stuck with economic and trade issues but Brussels has gone to far in wanting to control many aspects of life which I don't like.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      /\ LIKE

                      The corruption and arrogance of the EU is astounding they have demanded the uk pay a mega millions fine for our own accounts , this after camoronoccio caved in and paid a billion +app 18 months ago ,, another kof , fine yet these corrupt bastards have never in 21 years had the EU accounts signed off , a nice article below .

                      By Kathy Gyngell Posted 24th February 2016
                      So Achilles has finally come out of his tent and, at last, a victorious end to the forty year Eurosceptic siege of Brussels can be seen on the horizon.

                      In one apparent glorious shift of the tectonic plates, Boris’s ‘outing’ has succeeded in turning the marginal into the mainstream. Euroscepticism, once the territory of Mr Cameron’s mad swivel-eyed loons, has overnight morphed into the acceptable stuff of polite metrosexual liberal dinner party conversations. Johnson and Gove between them have provided its new and acceptable face.

                      Insulting your own side is a dangerous thing to do in politics. However, for three years it worked rather well for our Prime Minister, Mr Cameron. It kept his Cabinet (along with the perks and power thereof) in check.

                      With the BBC ever on hand to help with the labelling, marginalising or otherwise demonising the so called fruitcake brigade, Dave must have felt supremely confident that Brexit could never gain traction where it mattered – in Westminster – and that he was safe to promise a referendum despite the European Election results.

                      Well how wrong could he have been? A week in politics is a long time. Though he dare publicly question his former chums’ motives, Cameron can hardly imply that a former Cabinet ally is an extremist or that the libertarian and scholarly Mayor of London is a fruitcake, despite his various antics.

                      But for all the limelight accorded them neither could have orchestrated this seismic shift without the build up of hot molten rock from the magma chambers underground. If any of these latter day affiliates think they are solely responsible for changing the political landscape, they should think again – and pay some respect to those who paved the way.

                      For lest they forget there is one man and one man alone who delivered their day in the sun – one man who pretty much single-handedly delivered the referendum to the British public. He is the one man and the one man alone who can take credit for forcing – nay shaming – the Conservative Government to bow to public (not Westminster) opinion and finally allow a democratic vote on the fundamental governance of our country.

                      This one man is also the most significant force in British politics for a generation. He is more informed about the workings and history of the EU than any other British politician. He’s a man who grew a political party pretty much from nothing, a party which, in 15 years, has succeeded in redrawing Britain’s political map. Love him or loathe him, no one can take away the fact that under his leadership Ukip won the European Elections in 2014 hands down – stealing votes from Labour and the Conservatives alike. The Ukip victory was the first national election victory by other than the Conservatives or Labour in more than 100 years (since the Libs won in 1910).

                      He is also the man, who, though unquestionably a democrat and a patriot, has been tarred by people who should know better as a racist and has been treated like a political pariah by most of the political establishment.

                      Tory sceptic Cabinet ministers still resolutely cold shoulder him, they are reluctant to share a platform with him – even on an issue they fundamentally agree with him on. They treat him at best as though he were too common for them, at worst as though he was diseased.

                      He laughs it off. He is different. He has not waited carefully to weigh up the risks before putting his head over the parapet.

                      Without briefings and on the hoof he outperforms the lot of them. His answers flow naturally and fluently. He is a force of nature whereas they are not. He is of course Nigel Farage.

                      I am not saying he is without his flaws, no doubt ego is one of them. His capacity for not valuing the need for organisation is startling.

                      But of one thing there is no doubt. Without Nigel Farage there would be no referendum, there would have been no Cabinet ministers Vote Leave press conference. Gerard Lyons (The Mayor of London’s Chief Economic Advisor) would never have been given such a platform on the World at One on Monday to make his sceptical case. Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith would not have been doing the TV studio rounds all weekend.

                      Nigel Farage is the unsung hero of the Eurosceptic Odyssey. There are others too, less known than him, who have sacrificed political preferment for principle – who’ve been prepared to put country before party – not least Malcolm Pearson, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who through Global Britain for 16 years has ensured that the BBC’s EU coverage has never gone unscrutinised.


                      It is a poor show then that the man without whom we would not have a vote on our membership of the EU on June 23rd continues to be sidelined by the Westminster Eurosceptic elite – now they are happy to be named as such. They should know better and I for one expect more of them.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Democracy ??

                        ETT27 Feb 2016320
                        The European Commission is planning to slap down Hungary’s decision to hold a referendum on compulsory migrant quotas, claiming that holding a democratic vote would not “fit into the decision-making process” agreed by European Union (EU) states.

                        The quota system redistributes migrants from the most overwhelmed countries, including Germany, Greece and Italy, to EU states that have proved less popular with newly-arrived migrants.

                        The system is extremely unpopular in Eastern European countries, including Hungary, who feel Western Europe is using it to force thousands of migrants on them.

                        Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban now plans to challenge the policy by holding a referendum on quotas that will almost certainly see the plan rejected.

                        However, Euractive reports that the European Commission has questioned Hungary’s stance. Spokeswoman Natasha Bertaud said: “We fail to understand how it would fit into the decision-making process which was agreed to by all member states, including Hungary, under the EU treaties.”

                        Mr Orban defended his decision in an interview with German tabloid Bild, telling the paper: “We cannot make decisions over people’s heads that will significantly change their lives and those of future generations.

                        “The quota would change the profile of Hungary and Europe: ethnically, culturally, and religiously. My decision is not directed against Europe. It is a decision to protect European democracy.”

                        He added that the EU’s quota system violates its own laws: “This decision is not legal. It contradicts EU law. We are filing a suit against it, and so are the Slovakians. Plus, how many of those 160,000 have been distributed so far? Only a few hundred. This distribution key is nonsense, it does not work. But no one in Brussels wants to admit that.”

                        Mr Orban also laughed off any threat of EU sanctions against Hungary for failing to comply: “That is nothing but attempted scaremongering! The next EU budget will be decided in 2020. Sanctions would then, i.e. in a couple of years, require the votes of all member states. That will not happen.”

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Article 50 on leaving , confused, ? you will be .

                          In the various slanging matches about leaving or not leaving the EU that we have heard on the media lately, much has been said about the requirements of Article 50, and much of this has been inaccurate. It seems that while many people have heard of Article 50, few of them seem to have read it properly. I will try and clear some of the confusion around Article 50, as proper knowledge of it may help us in our campaign for a “LEAVE” vote in the referendum.

                          Article 50 appears towards the end of the “TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION”, which is the Maastricht Treaty as amended by all the other treaties since. Paragraph 1 of Article 50 simply states that any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union. Paragraph 2 requires that the Member State notifies the European Council (not to be confused with the Council, which is a different institution) of its intention to withdraw. It then goes on to say that the Union shall negotiate an agreement with that State for withdrawal, and states that the agreement shall be concluded by the Council (not the European Council, which is a different institution), acting by qualified majority voting, with the consent of the European Parliament. It is Paragraph 3 that seems to cause the most confusion, so it is reproduced here in its entirety:

                          “3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
                          Read carefully the bit about the two year period. An agreement can be concluded at any time but if, after two years, no agreement has been concluded, we would automatically revert to our pre-1973 position, unless we agree to extend the negotiation period. Paragraph 4 states that the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in any of their discussions concerning it. It does not say anything about MEPs or the European Parliament. Paragraph 5 is about a State that has withdrawn asking to rejoin, and can be disregarded as far as we are concerned.

                          Note that the European Council and the Council are two separate institutions. The European Council consists of Heads of State or Government, and a President (Donald Tusk). The Council constantly changes its configuration, and consists of national Ministers of Member States, responsible for whatever is being discussed at the time. Hopefully, this may clear up some of the confusion regarding Article 50.

                          It must however be remembered that Article 50 is not the only hoop we will have to jump through to leave the EU. The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) is the British legislation that gives effect to EU law within our borders. Once the ECA is repealed, European law (ie. the treaties, regulations, directives etc) becomes just so much paper and we would not be bound by them within our own territory. This means that, amongst many other things, we could control our borders and decide who we let in and who we don’t.

                          However, we do live in the wider world and we would most likely need the provisions of Article 50 to legitimize our exit on the international stage. Article 50 would probably also be needed to legitimize the recovery of things like our fisheries. The question of places like Gibraltar could get quite complicated, and it needs someone much more learned in law than me to try and explain that one. Whilst we are on the subject of Treaty Articles, let us also explore the subject of tariffs.

                          Once free of the EU we would resume our seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO). A look at the WTO website will show that the question of tariffs is not one that is easily answered. However, the “remain” campaign tries to tell us that heavy tariffs will be imposed on British goods and services if we leave the EU, yet there are provisions in the treaties that may refute this. Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union states at paragraph 2:

                          “The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to: […]”
                          There then follow several sub-paragraphs, of which the one of interest is sub-para (e), which states:

                          “(e) encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade”.
                          Presumably an independent UK would fall into the category of “all countries” so placing trade restrictions on us after Brexit would be contrary to this existing European law.

                          We then move to the “TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION”, which is the Treaty of Rome, as amended by all the other treaties, and which forms the other part of European law. Article 206 of this treaty comes under the Title of “Common Commercial Policy” and reads as follows:

                          “ By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 28 to 32, the Union shall contribute in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers.”
                          Once again it seems that existing EU law would prevent restrictions being imposed on us post Brexit. However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) may be able to interpret things differently if it chooses, and we might no longer be able to bring cases in the ECJ if we are no longer in the EU. These treaty provisions however may well be able to be used as evidence in a case heard by the WTO, which the EU would not be able to refuse to answer. The question of tariffs post Brexit is not a simple one but should not frighten us into remaining in the EU.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Yep, the EU isn't democratic. Mostly because we're allowing those few dozen millions in the east to have excessively more say than they would with a democratic system. Remember, population of Europe? 20% in the East, 5% up north, 25% in the South, and 50% in the Core and on the Islands. The Ministerial Council's votes are 6.8% in the North, 33.4% in the East, 24.7% in the South, 34.8% in the Core and on the Islands. If you want Europe to be more democratic take the votes from the East and put them with the Core.

                            And if you really want to make it democratic, elect the council from the EU parliament and abolish national says in European matters. Oh sorry, you Brits wouldn't be represented then, right? After all your mainstream conservatives side with the Fascists there...

                            Btw, your last quoted piece completely omits the Lisbon Treaty.
                            Last edited by kato; 27 Feb 16,, 17:16.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              If the United Kingdom were not already a member of the European Union, would we vote to join it?

                              It’s never easy to answer hypothetical questions; but it’s worth noting how people feel in the Western European countries that stayed out. Perhaps the non-EU nations most comparable to Britain, being neither ex-Communist nor microstates, are Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. In all of them, there are solid and settled majorities against joining the EU.

                              Here are the latest poll numbers. In Iceland, which formally withdrew its application in 2015, voters oppose joining by 50.1 per cent to 34.2 per cent. In Norway, by 72.0 per cent to 18.1 per cent. In Switzerland, opinion polls on the EU are rarer, because membership was killed off when a referendum in 2001 resulted in a massive 76.8 per cent against reopening accession talks. Still, for what it’s worth, the latest survey shows that 82 per cent of Swiss citizens support their current bilateral arrangements.

                              None of these countries has a perfect deal with the EU, because perfection is unattainable in this life. And no one is suggesting that Britain, a large state which exports less to the EU in proportionate terms than the EFTA nations do, would precisely mimic their arrangements.

                              But, whatever minor annoyances they have, they plainly prefer their present freedoms to stepping onto a conveyor belt whose far end they can’t see. Supporters of accession have never been able to answer the question raised by the Centre Party’s Anne Enger Lahnstein, who led the successful ‘No’ campaign when Norway held its accession referendum in 1994: ‘To what problem is the EU a solution?’

                              Continues
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The offer to join us as the fifty first state is still open, tankie. :D

                                Seriously, the number of Brit politicians that want an "out" vote of the EU - just to rangle better terms during negotiation for staying in - is alarming.
                                Last edited by YellowFever; 29 Feb 16,, 09:39.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X