The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Hopefully it will stop the arguments about Gib and we can tell Spain to pee off

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060

A German industry boss has said it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU.

Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI which represents German industry, said his organisation would make the case against such measures.

Quite.

From the perspective of his business he is probably right, but clearly there's the bigger picture to consider for the EU. For example they may well wish to drop all trade barriers between the UK and EU, but on what terms? Clearly all the "red tape" around product specifications and equivalence would need to be maintained, otherwise the UK could have a competitive advantage over EU businesses it can freely trade with, and clearly that would harm the EU. Then there comes workers rights. Why would the EU allow free trade as well as permitting the UK to drop all of those things, giving them a competitive advantage over EU businesses which must comply?

I haven't also touched upon the political considerations at play here. It's a point too glibly dismissed by the Brexiters, but the EU is a club and it very much puts the club at risk should they allow a member to leave and get the benefits of membership without the burdens. So from an economic perspective it may well be of detriment to the EU to impose trade tariffs/barriers with the UK, but they may feel it a political necessity. Who knows, but it's a risk that should not simply be dismissed.

Then there's also the timing of the free trade deal. Not being an expert in trade negotiations or a member of the civil service I cannot honestly claim to know how long such things tend to take. Again, in a departure from exercising my free will and lacking a mind of my own (according to Brexiters), I have chosen to listen to an expert on the subject, Gus O'Donnell. He seems to think 8 years is a realistic ball park. That's strikes me as a rather long period of uncertainty for UK business.

Where we seem to be getting to is that a free trade area is a really good thing, and in order to have one you need each member of the free trade area to comply with the same rules around production specifications and workers' rights etc., to ensure a level playing field. Sounds good, and an awful lot like the EU. So, in sum, the article you've posted is being used in a pro-Brexit manner, but what it's really saying is that the EU is a good thing and the UK should vote Remain.

Hero wrote:He also said:

"The BDI would urge politicians on both sides to come up with a trade regime that enables us to uphold and maintain the levels of trade we have, although it will become more difficult."

Oh and what else is in that article?

Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said a leave vote would mean Britain leaving the European single market - "out is out".

Should the UK request a trade deal, a senior MP in Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, Juergen Hardt, says the EU would not be able to negotiate a trade pact with the UK quickly.
"I'm sure we'll find ways again to link Britain to Europe, but it will be tougher for Britain," he said.

He said the EU was busy trying to do a deal with the US. On a UK deal - should one be requested - he said "there will be negotiations but (it is) not a priority".

So a lot of Leaders and 'specialists' have gotten out their old Ladybird copies of Chicken Licken.

And ain't that the very thing about Europe that sceptics most pinpoint.  One nation - Germany - speaking for the rest so naturally and fluidly.  Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.  He has an opinion.  Others will have theirs.  Others already disagree with him.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060

A German industry boss has said it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU.

Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI which represents German industry, said his organisation would make the case against such measures.

Quite.

Also -
"He said a vote to leave the EU would lead to a "serious disruption" to the German-UK economic relationship".

Is that good for the UK?

Basically Duty just picks out the quotes that support his arguments.  Person says Leave bad for UK? Ignore/dismiss.  Person says trade barriers might not go up upon Leave? Quick, quote dat sh!t....

He's also very good at removing certain key sentences in an article when it suits him as well. On page 1 of this thread I caught him out when he intentionally removed 'in their words' to his benefit.

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:He also said:

"The BDI would urge politicians on both sides to come up with a trade regime that enables us to uphold and maintain the levels of trade we have, although it will become more difficult."

Oh and what else is in that article?

Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said a leave vote would mean Britain leaving the European single market - "out is out".

Should the UK request a trade deal, a senior MP in Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, Juergen Hardt, says the EU would not be able to negotiate a trade pact with the UK quickly.
"I'm sure we'll find ways again to link Britain to Europe, but it will be tougher for Britain," he said.

He said the EU was busy trying to do a deal with the US. On a UK deal - should one be requested - he said "there will be negotiations but (it is) not a priority".

So a lot of Leaders and 'specialists' have gotten out their old Ladybird copies of Chicken Licken.

And ain't that the very thing about Europe that sceptics most pinpoint.  One nation - Germany - speaking for the rest so naturally and fluidly.  Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.  He has an opinion.  Others will have theirs.  Others already disagree with him.

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

Hero wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:He also said:

"The BDI would urge politicians on both sides to come up with a trade regime that enables us to uphold and maintain the levels of trade we have, although it will become more difficult."

Oh and what else is in that article?

Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said a leave vote would mean Britain leaving the European single market - "out is out".

Should the UK request a trade deal, a senior MP in Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, Juergen Hardt, says the EU would not be able to negotiate a trade pact with the UK quickly.
"I'm sure we'll find ways again to link Britain to Europe, but it will be tougher for Britain," he said.

He said the EU was busy trying to do a deal with the US. On a UK deal - should one be requested - he said "there will be negotiations but (it is) not a priority".

So a lot of Leaders and 'specialists' have gotten out their old Ladybird copies of Chicken Licken.

And ain't that the very thing about Europe that sceptics most pinpoint.  One nation - Germany - speaking for the rest so naturally and fluidly.  Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.  He has an opinion.  Others will have theirs.  Others already disagree with him.

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

It really beggars belief. At least we know which one of C2/D2 SecretFly belongs to now:

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

To paraphrase Joe Strummer:

"If we go there will be trouble,
But if we stay it will be double..."

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

Does Germany not have a veto on any trade agreements, then?

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

Just admit that you were wrong and we can move on.

ShahenshahG wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

Does Germany not have a veto on any trade agreements, then?

Well either way - you're up a creek if Remain is the camp you belong to. Has Germany a veto on trade that overrides the vetos/unified consensus ideals of other member states? Nice EU...a big reason for Leaving - no?

Coxy001 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

Just admit that you were wrong and we can move on.

Wrong about what, Coxy? I know you're in a hurry to vote everyone who disagrees with the Remain stance as wrong - after all only a day left. But what am I wrong about?

So I guess the answer is no.... we can't move on - much as I'm sure you'd like to.

I may have missed it on this thread but what are peoples thoughts on TTIP? Personally I think TTIP would be a a disaster for the EU, but can we fight it off?

funnyExiledScot wrote:
From the perspective of his business he is probably right, but clearly there's the bigger picture to consider for the EU. For example they may well wish to drop all trade barriers between the UK and EU, but on what terms? Clearly all the "red tape" around product specifications and equivalence would need to be maintained, otherwise the UK could have a competitive advantage over EU businesses it can freely trade with, and clearly that would harm the EU. Then there comes workers rights. Why would the EU allow free trade as well as permitting the UK to drop all of those things, giving them a competitive advantage over EU businesses which must comply?

I haven't also touched upon the political considerations at play here. It's a point too glibly dismissed by the Brexiters, but the EU is a club and it very much puts the club at risk should they allow a member to leave and get the benefits of membership without the burdens. So from an economic perspective it may well be of detriment to the EU to impose trade tariffs/barriers with the UK, but they may feel it a political necessity. Who knows, but it's a risk that should not simply be dismissed.

Then there's also the timing of the free trade deal. Not being an expert in trade negotiations or a member of the civil service I cannot honestly claim to know how long such things tend to take. Again, in a departure from exercising my free will and lacking a mind of my own (according to Brexiters), I have chosen to listen to an expert on the subject, Gus O'Donnell. He seems to think 8 years is a realistic ball park. That's strikes me as a rather long period of uncertainty for UK business.

Where we seem to be getting to is that a free trade area is a really good thing, and in order to have one you need each member of the free trade area to comply with the same rules around production specifications and workers' rights etc., to ensure a level playing field. Sounds good, and an awful lot like the EU. So, in sum, the article you've posted is being used in a pro-Brexit manner, but what it's really saying is that the EU is a good thing and the UK should vote Remain.

You also have to consider that a free trade deal requires unanimous approval. The German Industry Federation's point of view may not sway the Spanish Government for example. They might want Gibraltar as a price for that, which the UK couldn't accept.

Then you have the fact that the longer the negotiations take, the more investment will switch from the UK to the EU. So you might get Slovakia holding up a deal, as they wait for Nissan to switch investment from Tyneside to Slovakia.

The financial industry is rather different. Germany may be all smiles now, but once the UK is outside of the EU, they can and they will oblige much of the City to move to the EU - which means Frankfurt.

Munchkin wrote:I may have missed it on this thread but what are peoples thoughts on TTIP? Personally I think TTIP would be a a disaster for the EU, but can we fight it off?

A bit off topic, but a Trade Agreement would clearly boost economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

However, it might be going a bit far to cover common standards for so many things (but don't worry, we won't have to use crappy US plugs or even crappy European plugs in our homes).

Also the Investor Settlement Dispute System is not needed. Europe has a perfectly good legal framework for handling disputes already, and I think the US one is probably acceptable.

In the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate something similar with the US. However, it would be "at the back of the queue" and when a small country like the UK tries to negotiate trade with the US, it's more a question of "where exactly do you want me to bend over, Sir?"

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is officially THE finance minister for Germany. That's his title. How can you raise issue with the sentence 'Germany's finance minister' when he is Germany's finance minister.

And that's all he is...for now!  Both He and you though seem to make him Spokesperson for the EU.  In the event of a Brex-it, The EU as a whole would decide what 'out is out' means - not Mr Schaeuble alone.  Oh he'd certainly try to push his influence... but his view isn't universal within the EU.  He speaks for Germany.

Just admit that you were wrong and we can move on.

Wrong about what, Coxy?  I know you're in a hurry to vote everyone who disagrees with the Remain stance as wrong - after all only a day left.  But what am I wrong about?

So I guess the answer is no.... we can't move on - much as I'm sure you'd like to.

Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.

Coxy001 wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.

Now follow me closely. Your nerves are getting to you. It's the final leg of the race, so I understand completely. People want to score the winning goal. The 90 minutes are almost up.

Mr Schaeuble was quoted above - yes?

He was quoted as saying (I paraphrase) if the UK choose Leave that will mean they are out of the common market - "out is out" - Yes?

I replied he's only one finance minister not THE finance minister. Yes?

How many finance ministers in the EU?

Alex_Germany wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I may have missed it on this thread but what are peoples thoughts on TTIP? Personally I think TTIP would be a a disaster for the EU, but can we fight it off?

A bit off topic, but a Trade Agreement would clearly boost economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

However, it might be going a bit far to cover common standards for so many things (but don't worry, we won't have to use crappy US plugs or even crappy European plugs in our homes).

Also the Investor Settlement Dispute System is not needed. Europe has a perfectly good legal framework for handling disputes already, and I think the US one is probably acceptable.

In the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate something similar with the US. However, it would be "at the back of the queue" and when a small country like the UK tries to negotiate trade with the US, it's more a question of "where exactly do you want me to bend over, Sir?"

TTIP is completely on topic. TTIP may have a massive impact on the EU.

What's your thoughts on this article? :

Brexit better for Britain than toxic TTIP, says Joseph Stiglitz

Britain would be better off leaving the European Union (EU) if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is implemented, Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said.


Stiglitz made the remark at an event hosted by Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell on Wednesday in central London. The evening was part of the Labour Party’s series of seminars on progressive economics.

Addressing the crowd, Stiglitz said the restrictive nature of TTIP offers grounds for a Brexit.

“I think that the strictures imposed by TTIP would be sufficiently averse to the functioning of government that it would make me think over again about whether membership of the EU was a good idea,” he said.

The US economist said TTIP represents a wholesale “rewriting of the rules with no public discussion.”

“The dangers to our society are very significant,” he added.

Eroded sovereignty
TTIP will create the world’s biggest free-trade zone, scrapping tariffs and other obstacles to the trade of goods and services. While its proponents argue the trade deal will encourage investment and create employment, its critics warn it will empower corporations to sue foreign governments that threaten their profits.

Central to the US-EU trade deal, is an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause that would give corporations the power to sue governments when policy-makers introduce regulations that could curb their profits. Details of such cases are often shrouded in secrecy, conducted in clandestine court settings.

Critics argue TTIP lacks transparency, impinges on sovereign governments’ right to rule in the public interest, and could result in regulators becoming captured.

United Nations (UN) figures reveal that US firms have raked in billions of dollars by suing domestic governments to date. Since 2000 alone, American firms have sued states on 130 separate occasions under free-trade agreements.

One such firm, Phillip Morris, sued Australia and Uruguay in recent years for placing health warnings on cigarette packets.

“Every time you passed a regulation against asbestos or anything else, you would be sued,” Stiglitz said.

“There’s nothing in TTIP to stop you writing the regulation. You can write the regulation. You would just have to keep writing a check to Philip Morris to make up for the profits that they would have had if they were able to kill people like they were able to in the past.”

Stiglitz was largely supportive of Britain’s EU membership, highlighting EU states such as Sweden that are part of the bloc but have agreed on separate rules. He argued EU leaders should scrap the euro but keep the union.

‘Ruthless deal’
Speaking to RT, director of UK think tank Global Justice Now (GJN) Nick Dearden said Stiglitz’s position is “largely hypothetical.”

“There’s no doubt that this toxic trade deal being cooked up in Brussels is driving a lot of people to feel that the UK would be better off outside of the EU, but there’s nothing to suggest that a Brexit wouldn’t prevent something worse taking its place,” he said.

“Cameron has been one of the biggest cheerleaders of TTIP and the UK has signed a host of ruthlessly free-market bilateral trade deals with many other countries that contain ISDS – so it’s entirely possible that there would be a push in the UK to create an even worse UK-USA equivalent of TTIP.”

Dearden said Europe’s anti-TTIP movement is inspiring.

“Millions of people have mobilized across borders to challenge the corporate power grab of TTIP,” he said.

“That’s an inspiring vision of how staying in Europe can mean people working together for progressive social change.”

‘TTIP counters public interest’
A leading aim of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services. Although the European Commission (EC) has said public services will be excluded from TTIP, UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston admitted that talks concerning the NHS were still on the agenda last October.

Campaigners are concerned about TTIP’s “regulatory convergence” agenda, which will seek to bring EU standards on food safety closer to those seen in the US.

Because US regulations are generally less rigid than their European counterparts, campaigners are worried about a decline in food standards across Europe. They argue European food markets could be flooded with genetically modified products and foods doused in hormones and pesticides after TTIP is implemented.

As TTIP negotiations continue to play out behind closed doors, the City of London is thought to be lobbying for US banking regulations to be softened. America’s financial regulations are more robust than those seen in Britain, and were put in place in the wake of the 2007/08 global financial crisis. Ethical finance campaigners fear TTIP will scrap these measures and restrictions, handing power back to bankers in the process.

Campaigners are also worried about rising levels of unemployment. Last year, Brussels admitted that TTIP could cause considerable levels of joblessness. It has advised EU members on how to deal with increased levels of unemployment after TTIP comes into force.

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Wolfgang Schaeuble is one finance minister not THE finance minister.

Now follow me closely.  Your nerves are getting to you.  It's the final leg of the race, so I understand completely.  People want to score the winning goal.  The 90 minutes are almost up.

Mr Schaeuble was quoted above - yes?  

He was quoted as saying (I paraphrase) if the UK choose Leave that will mean they are out of the common market - "out is out" - Yes?

I replied he's only one finance minister not THE finance minister.  Yes?

How many finance ministers in the EU?

You need to speak a bit clearer dear boy as the insinuation that I and someone else (can't remember who) made is that he's not the top dog for finance in Germany.

I blame a lack of muchness between your ears.

And I'm pretty confident about remain winning so I'm calm, just looking forwards to it being over so I don't have to converse with Duty and yourself

Coxy001 wrote:[

You need to speak a bit clearer dear boy as the insinuation that I and someone else (can't remember who) made is that he's not the top dog for finance in Germany.

I blame a lack of muchness between your ears.

And I'm pretty confident about remain winning so I'm calm, just looking forwards to it being over so I don't have to converse with Duty and yourself

Nah - I'm fine with my own brand of English.

You and the someone else jumped the gun and saw the word 'German' where no 'German' existed.

But I'm glad we got to a stage where we can 'move on' now.

I'm not a fan of TTIP (or rather I am very much in favour of free trade, but not at any price and I worry about the potential impact on important public services), but it serves as a clear warning as to the difficulties of negotiating trade agreements with the US (and achieving a favourable agreement with the US is fundamental to the Brexit economic argument).

Which current leading finance minsters disagree with him then?

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm not a fan of TTIP, but it serves as a clear warning as to the difficulties of negotiating trade agreements with the US (and achieving a favourable agreement with the US is fundamental to the Brexit economic argument).

Apparently, the US does not see the ISDS clause as important - as Europe has effective courts (where corporations can already sue Governments, as happens all the time).

However, they would like it in as a precedent, as ISDS is important when investing in countries where the courts may not be independent and may be controlled by the Government.

I suspect that the EU will have enough negotiating leverage to scrap ISDS. I don't think the UK will.

A lot of the rest is like "You want to sell us your dirty diesel cars, then you have to buy our hormone pumped beef". The EU is far more capable of resisting these sorts of ploys than the UK.

The only way the Brexiters will be able to conclude a quick trade deal with the US - which they claim to want to, and will need to do, will be by accepting the US contract without amendment.

Hero wrote:Which current leading finance minsters disagree with him then?

'Leading'???

There you go again.

You'll have to get out of this attitude about the supremacy of the word 'leading'.

On my understanding - if a Brex-it happened - and relax, I don't think it will - but if it did, then that would be the beginning of a period whereby the UK government would be obliged to engage in a process with the EU in ending many of the treaties they've entered into. Talks, conclusion, more talks and more conclusions.

Now the treaties are complex and probably many of them are mutually tied into each other in some ways - so the job will be a complex one - true.

But let's say the UK wanted to sustain membership of the common market aspect - and have a treaty already at hand that they're not willing to give up on. So Mr Schaeuble, and perhaps others would get on their high horse and demand that punishment for leaving is punishment for leaving - the "out is out" policy.

Well the Irish finance minister has already declared that Ireland would block any attempt to oust the UK from the common market. So vetos might be right popular, and not just with Mr Schaeuble, when those negotiations on the details of the UKs exit came up.

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:Which current leading finance minsters disagree with him then?

'Leading'???

There you go again.

You'll have to get out of this attitude about the supremacy of the word 'leading'.

On my understanding - if a Brex-it happened - and relax, I don't think it will - but if it did, then that would be the beginning of a period whereby the UK government would be obliged to engage in a process with the EU in ending many of the treaties they've entered into.  Talks, conclusion, more talks and more conclusions.

Now the treaties are complex and probably many of them are mutually tied into each other in some ways - so the job will be a complex one - true.

But let's say the UK wanted to sustain membership of the common market aspect - and have a treaty already at hand that they're not willing to give up on.  So Mr Schaeuble, and perhaps others would get on their high horse and demand that punishment for leaving is punishment for leaving - the "out is out" policy.

Well the Irish finance minister has already declared that Ireland would block any attempt to oust the UK from the common market.  So vetos might be right popular, and not just with Mr Schaeuble, when those negotiations on the details of the UKs exit came up.  

I'm confident that there's no legal basis for Ireland exercising a veto in this manner, but very sweet of Ireland to show they care!

I use the word 'leading' to represent the actual financial ministers for each country within the EU rather than just a finance minister, how would you like me to word it so that you understand it? In a riddle?

The first is in moon but not in sun...

funnyExiledScot wrote:

I'm confident that there's no legal basis for Ireland exercising a veto in this manner, but very sweet of Ireland to show they care!

How would you be confident? Nothing sweet about it. Hard business dogheadedness. But sweet of you to say so. Your mood piece again insiunuating just how sweet the EU is on the concept of 'equal status for equal states'.

Hmmm... you sure you're not a Leaver?

Hero wrote:I use the word 'leading' to represent the actual financial ministers for each country within the EU rather than just a finance minister, how would you like me to word it so that you understand it? In a riddle?

The first is in moon but not in sun...

A finance minister is a finance minister...no need for 'Leading'. That's how simple it is.

But of course we all know why you used leading - to infer that word again, 'influence' - and a drop of 'power'.

Yummm!!! Tasty!

SecretFly wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

I'm confident that there's no legal basis for Ireland exercising a veto in this manner, but very sweet of Ireland to show they care!

How would you be confident?  Nothing sweet about it.  Hard business dogheadedness.  But sweet of you to say so.  Your mood piece again insiunuating just how sweet the EU is on the concept of 'equal status for equal states'.

Hmmm... you sure you're not a Leaver?

I'm confident because if indeed Ireland is able to veto the UK leaving the common market, they would in effect be able to overrule the UK referendum vote. I'm also a lawyer and have studied EU law, and I am not aware of any provision in the EU Treaties to suggest that each Member State has a veto over another Member State choosing to leave the EU. It isn't "hard business dogheadedness", it's a failure to understand how the EU works.

If the UK votes Leave, then we Leave. That isn't the EU "kicking us out" - that is the UK choosing to Leave (and you don't get to leave bits of it, you are either a Member State of the EU or you are not). As to the terms of our negotiated trade deal with the EU which follows the UK no longer being a Member State, then Ireland would indeed have a veto over those terms - along with every other Member State. One of the reasons as to why it is predicted (by those pesky experts) not to be a quick and smooth process.

Apologies if this has been posted.....

Cameron stating that if we remain, the reform process will continue on Friday, to which Juncker has replied:

"British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation."

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Apologies if this has been posted.....

Cameron stating that if we remain, the reform process will continue on Friday, to which Juncker has replied:

"British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation."

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has said there would be no renegotiations with Britain following its membership referendum.

"The British policy makers and British voters have to know that there will not be any kind of renegotiation," Mr Juncker told reporters in Brussels.

"Out is out."

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Apologies if this has been posted.....

Cameron stating that if we remain, the reform process will continue on Friday, to which Juncker has replied:

"British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation."

Quite, Mr. Juncker.

The sensible and well-read will know that the EU is an unreformable institution, no matter how much the delusional (such as Owen Jones) pretend otherwise.

As Mr Juncker points out, it's an empty gesture from Cameron. There can be no guarantees that the UK can secure an even better deal from the EU than it currently gets, and all Cameron is saying is that he'll do his best to try (which is pretty meaningless).

Still, luckily the Leave campaign don't listen to experts and authoritative figures, so they won't take any notice of Mr Juncker's comments.

Munchkin wrote:I may have missed it on this thread but what are peoples thoughts on TTIP? Personally I think TTIP would be a a disaster for the EU, but can we fight it off?

Broadly negative but largely irrelevant as the UK would sign up to it in a flash with or without the EU.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I may have missed it on this thread but what are peoples thoughts on TTIP? Personally I think TTIP would be a a disaster for the EU, but can we fight it off?

Broadly negative but largely irrelevant as any UK Conservative government the UK would sign up to it in a flash with or without the EU.

Just one edit.

Nah, LD's and New Labour would too.

What time's everyone voting tomorrow then? Reckon I'll do mine as the polls open, not that I'm eager I just want to spend time after work having a few beers and not having to scamper off.

As for TTIP, haven't read up on it enough to comment with any authority but it doesn't sound like a great thing from what I have read and heard. Saying that some of my friends are socialist idiots, so most of what they say is tosh anyway.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nah, LD's and New Labour would too.

The Lib Dems would support it, but not even Duty would drop a grand or two on them forming a UK govt any time soon!

Not sure about New Labour - I suspect at the very least they'd want more detailed assurances around the NHS, and the provision of health services being out of scope. Again, whether they'd get it or not is a completely different matter.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nah, LD's and New Labour would too.

The Lib Dems would support it, but not even Duty would drop a grand or two on them forming a UK govt any time soon!

Not sure about New Labour - I suspect at the very least they'd want more detailed assurances around the NHS, and the provision of health services being out of scope. Again, whether they'd get it or not is a completely different matter.

Never, ever, ever, underestimate the Lib Dem fightback.

Astonishing party - what they stand for is neither liberal nor democratic, but it's in the name!

Coxy001 wrote:What time's everyone voting tomorrow then? Reckon I'll do mine as the polls open, not that I'm eager I just want to spend time after work having a few beers and not having to scamper off.

As for TTIP, haven't read up on it enough to comment with any authority but it doesn't sound like a great thing from what I have read and heard. Saying that some of my friends are socialist idiots, so most of what they say is tosh anyway.

I always vote first thing in the morning. I sadly find it quite exciting!

As to TTIP, here's the case for:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-vince-cable-makes-the-case-for-ttip-and-free-trade-50160.html

and against:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Will be voting at 5 pm because that's when the station is emptiest.

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Nah, LD's and New Labour would too.

The Lib Dems would support it, but not even Duty would drop a grand or two on them forming a UK govt any time soon!

Not sure about New Labour - I suspect at the very least they'd want more detailed assurances around the NHS, and the provision of health services being out of scope. Again, whether they'd get it or not is a completely different matter.

Never, ever, ever, underestimate the Lib Dem fightback.

Astonishing party - what they stand for is neither liberal nor democratic, but it's in the name!

As a member of the Liberal Democrats, on The Orange Book side of the party, I happen to disagree.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=63457